I DON'T KNOW HOW TO LOVE HIM
BrendaLee
MARY MAGDALENE
I don't know how to love him.
What to do, how to move him.
I've been changed, yes really changed.
In these past few days, when I've seen myself,
I seem like someone else.
I don't know how to take this.
I don't see why he moves me.
He's a man. He's just a man.
And I've had so many men before,
In very many ways,
He's just one more.
Should I bring him down?
Should I scream and shout?
Should I speak of love,
Let my feelings out?
I never thought I'd come to this.
What's it all about?
Don't you think it's rather funny,
I should be in this position.
I'm the one who's always been
So calm, so cool, no lover's fool,
Running every show.
He scares me so.
I never thought I'd come to this.
What's it all about?
Yet, if he said he loved me,
I'd be lost. I'd be frightened.
I couldn't cope, just couldn't cope.
I'd turn my head. I'd back away.
I wouldn't want to know.
He scares me so.
I want him so.
I love him so.
--
~~~~~~
BrendaLee
RFA President – The Lady DreamCatcher
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.cocreator.com/ehmka/
"Only unsuccessful people need to know who they are.
Successful people already know they will never know
who they are."
---Kevin Ehmka
Those who think they have no time for bodily exercise
will, sooner or later, have to find time for illness.
---Edward Stanley, Earl of Derby, 1873
BrendaLee
You feel that small that you have to forge my address?
As it is my legal address and you have no permission to use my
address you have broken the law.
You are hereby notified as such.
What a sad person you are.
BrendaLee (What a sad person you are.)
ps
It is archived as such.
Kevin Ehmka (did not) wrote:
>
> You never did. That's why you treated me like crap, then ditched the other
> Kevin and came running back to me. You don't know how to love anyone who isn't
> you.
Sharon B
wrote:
>
>You feel that small that you have to forge my address?
>
>As it is my legal address and you have no permission to use my
>address you have broken the law.
Are you serious?
Courageous
>Are you trying to say there's no such law?
"Fake emails mostly legal
Spoofing generally isn't illegal because no hacking is required, FBI
officials say, leaving prosecutors with little recourse unless there's
a threat of death or violence involved."
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/04/21/hate.email.ap/index.html
I wouldn't be surprised if this article were simply mistaken, or if
there were certain privaces laws at work in some states that the FBI
wasn't speaking to; and in any case, it's certainly true that a
malicious use of someone else's email address could quickly become
actionable depending upon what was said and done with that address.
C//
Sharon B
>Are you trying to say there's no such law?
Actually, I was too busy laughing to say much of anything :-)
She can go a few rounds of Whack-a-Mole if she wants (if it's not just
a froggery).
LARTable != illegal
*snurf*
....posting people's private correspondence is ENTIRELY lame....
--
Judge Advocate Very Large Number of Cohorts
1st Virginia Volunteers Official Cohort #11
CEsium Brigade
Universal License to Subject Human Beings to Indignities
Temporary License #11
Sharon B
wrote:
Um. That article was referring to joe-jobbing.
Sharon B
>Sharon B <sha...@lart.com> wrote:
>
>>....posting people's private correspondence is ENTIRELY lame....
>
>Is this some kind of religious tenet?
Yes.
yaya
> You never did. That's why you treated me like crap, then ditched the other
> Kevin and came running back to me. You don't know how to love anyone who isn't
> you.
"I DON'T KNOW HOW TO LOVE HIM!"
Sure sounds like a question worth asking.
Guess nobody had an answer, huh?
Shweeeet!
P.S. Who is the idiot who put Kevin's
email address in the reply list?
Hardy har haaar!
Yahya
--And they call us terrorists!
Sharon B
>Sharon B wrote:
>>miguel wrote:
>>>Sharon B wrote:
>
>>>>....posting people's private correspondence is ENTIRELY lame....
>
>>>Is this some kind of religious tenet?
>
>>Yes.
>
>Then your religion sucks.
WOT a coincidence! That is exactly the way the vast majority feel
about those who publish private email!!
<http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22posting+private+email%22&btnG=Google+Search>
>HTH
Thank you. I do find it helpful to sort the cretins and net.loons
from the regular people, the sooner the better.
Sharon B
>Sharon B wrote:
>>miguel wrote:
>>>Sharon B wrote:
>>>>miguel wrote:
>>>>>Sharon B wrote:
>
>>>>>>....posting people's private correspondence is ENTIRELY lame....
>
>>>>>Is this some kind of religious tenet?
>
>>>>Yes.
>
>>>Then your religion sucks.
>
>>WOT a coincidence! That is exactly the way the vast majority feel
>>about those who publish private email!!
>
>Well, if it makes you feel good to count yourself amongst a
>bunch of idiots, knock yerself out.
Thanks ever so much for your permission.
>But, I fail to see why anybody who is not an acquaintance,
>sends unsolicited email and defames somebody in that email
>by calling him a pedophile has any reasonable expectation of
>privacy that the email won't be published.
Get thee over to dictionary.com. When you get there, look up
'defamation' and 'correspondence'.
>If you have some rationale to support why such an email
>ought be kept private, do feel free to offer it.
If you have some rationale to support why you can't use normal English
correctly in a sentence, do feel free to offer it.
Also, when you have some rationale to support getting your knickers
all twisted over what some net.loon sez, feel free to offer that, too.
--she who has been called a pedophile /dozens/ of times
Mike Given
>miguel <the...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>Sharon B wrote:
>>>miguel wrote:
>>>>Sharon B wrote:
>>>>>miguel wrote:
>>>>>>Sharon B wrote:
>>>>>>>posting people's private correspondence is ENTIRELY
>>>>>>>lame.
Yes, it is, depending on whom that correspondence comes from and what
is written therein. Polite correspondence sent to me in confidence is
not shared publicly nor will it ever be, however, not all correspondence
falls into that category.
>>>>>>Is this some kind of religious tenet?
>>>>>Yes.
>>>>Then your religion sucks.
>>>WOT a coincidence! That is exactly the way the vast majority
>>>feel about those who publish private email!!
>>Well, if it makes you feel good to count yourself amongst a
>>bunch of idiots, knock yerself out.
>Thanks ever so much for your permission.
Obviously you've never been caught passing notes from desk to desk in
a parochial grade school.
>>But, I fail to see why anybody who is not an acquaintance,
>>sends unsolicited email and defames somebody in that email
>>by calling him a pedophile has any reasonable expectation of
>>privacy that the email won't be published.
>Get thee over to dictionary.com. When you get there, look up
>'defamation' and 'correspondence'.
Don't need a dictionary for simple shit like that, and in any case,
only one of those terms is even vaguely applicable here.
When you write email (or even old-fashioned hard-copy snail mail) the
(e)mail in question becomes property of the recipient, not the sender.
Ergo, the recipient may do with it as (s)he pleases. If the sender has
written something defamatory about him/her self in that (e)mail, that's
his or her problem, not the recipient's problem.
>>If you have some rationale to support why such an email
>>ought be kept private, do feel free to offer it.
>If you have some rationale to support why you can't use
>normal English correctly in a sentence, do feel free to
>offer it.
All of the above parsed pretty cleanly to me.
>Also, when you have some rationale to support getting
>your knickers all twisted over what some net.loon sez,
>feel free to offer that, too.
My former ISP used to forward the drivel complaining about me for
nothing more than to share its comedic value. Before the Great Hard
Drive Crash of 1999 I had a good collection of email sent to me (or
about me) from various sources that ranged from colorful remarks on my
ancestral lineage to beating and death threats, pretty much any of which
I would not feel in the least bit guilty about sharing just for
shits'n'giggles.
>--she who has been called a pedophile /dozens/ of times
Yah, well, I just got an email offering to help me enlarge my breasts,
so false accusations of pedophilia hardly even rate.
Mikey (..there's also one inviting me to watch some girl suck-off a
horse; I think I'll pass on that one too.)
Sharon B
wrote:
>Sharon B wrote:
>>miguel <the...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>Sharon B wrote:
>>>>miguel wrote:
>>>>>Sharon B wrote:
>>>>>>miguel wrote:
>>>>>>>Sharon B wrote:
>>>>>>>>posting people's private correspondence is ENTIRELY
>>>>>>>>lame.
>
> Yes, it is, depending on whom that correspondence comes from and what
>is written therein. Polite correspondence sent to me in confidence is
>not shared publicly nor will it ever be,
Correspondence is, by definition, friendly and civil.
>however, not all correspondence
>falls into that category.
You are mistaken.
correspondence:
1. Friendly intercourse; reciprocal exchange of civilities;
especially, intercourse between persons by means of letters.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA,
Inc.
>>>>>>>Is this some kind of religious tenet?
>>>>>>Yes.
>>>>>Then your religion sucks.
>>>>WOT a coincidence! That is exactly the way the vast majority
>>>>feel about those who publish private email!!
>>>Well, if it makes you feel good to count yourself amongst a
>>>bunch of idiots, knock yerself out.
>>Thanks ever so much for your permission.
>
> Obviously you've never been caught passing notes from desk to desk in
>a parochial grade school.
Not parochial, and it was lame.
>>>But, I fail to see why anybody who is not an acquaintance,
>>>sends unsolicited email and defames somebody in that email
>>>by calling him a pedophile has any reasonable expectation of
>>>privacy that the email won't be published.
>>Get thee over to dictionary.com. When you get there, look up
>>'defamation' and 'correspondence'.
>
> Don't need a dictionary for simple shit like that,
Apparently some *do*.
>and in any case,
>only one of those terms is even vaguely applicable here.
>When you write email (or even old-fashioned hard-copy snail mail) the
>(e)mail in question becomes property of the recipient, not the sender.
AFAIK. There /is/ debate on the other side about copyright
infringement and one ISP (English, IIRC) does have that as part of
their TOS.
>Ergo, the recipient may do with it as (s)he pleases. If the sender has
>written something defamatory about him/her self in that (e)mail, that's
>his or her problem, not the recipient's problem.
How can someone defame *themself*?
That is just silly.
>>>If you have some rationale to support why such an email
>>>ought be kept private, do feel free to offer it.
>>If you have some rationale to support why you can't use
>>normal English correctly in a sentence, do feel free to
>>offer it.
>
> All of the above parsed pretty cleanly to me.
defamation:
Act of injuring another's reputation by any slanderous communication,
written or oral; the wrong of maliciously injuring the good name of
another; slander; detraction; calumny; aspersion.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA,
Inc.
It reads to *me* (and someone will clarify if I'm in error) that
Miguel is complaining about Chaney calling him a pedophile in an
unsolicited email that Chaney sent *to* Miguel.
That would be neither correspondence *or* defamation, since Chaney
can't defame Miguel *to* Miguel. That is silly.
>>Also, when you have some rationale to support getting
>>your knickers all twisted over what some net.loon sez,
>>feel free to offer that, too.
>
> My former ISP used to forward the drivel complaining about me for
>nothing more than to share its comedic value.
Yah, mine do, too. Very amusing:-)
>Before the Great Hard
>Drive Crash of 1999 I had a good collection of email sent to me (or
>about me) from various sources that ranged from colorful remarks on my
>ancestral lineage to beating and death threats, pretty much any of which
>I would not feel in the least bit guilty about sharing just for
>shits'n'giggles.
Of course not. But what you are talking about is not, by definition,
correspondence.
Taylor (owner of lart.com) got a REALLY funny one (he gets all the
best ones) that we're all still laughing about:
Richard the Stupid (who actually /is/ a pedophile) had his brother
Larry email Taylor impersonating a prosecuting attorney from Maricopa
County, AZ (yes, *the* Maricopa County with Sheriff Joe and his tent
jails in the desert).
His claim was that he wanted Taylor to help the Maricopa County
prosecutor's office nail Richard the Stupid for his child pornography
crimes in Wisconsin....apparently, Maricopa County's jurisdiction
extends WELL beyond Maricopa County, out of Arizona and into Wisconsin
:-)
The Maricopa County Prosecutor's Office was also amused. Even more so
as it turns out that the specific attorney he was impersonating had
thumped him hard in a court case where Stupid Larry had sued the
county and represented himself.....I think the term used was
"dismissed with prejudice".
<holds sides laughing>
HOWEVER, net cretins and loons kookfarting in one's inbox does not a
correspondence make, AS PER DEFINITION.
My comment in this thread was very specific to whatever cretin it is
running around anonymously posting Brenda's love letters, who then
acted silly by calling forging her from: line criminal.
He/she isn't breaking the law. He/she is ENTIRELY lame for posting
private correspondence.
That Miguel got his boxers all bunched over something that never
pertained to him and jumped in with both feet all out of whack
frothing at me and (f)laming me over several post cycles.
I am amused and confused.
>>--she who has been called a pedophile /dozens/ of times
>
> Yah, well, I just got an email offering to help me enlarge my breasts,
>so false accusations of pedophilia hardly even rate.
I'm not seeing you running around frothing about it.
Dark Angel
| He/she isn't breaking the law. He/she is ENTIRELY lame for posting
| private correspondence.
Except it isn't private correspondence. He/she is posting old
usenet posts Brenda made.
|> Yah, well, I just got an email offering to help me enlarge my breasts,
|>so false accusations of pedophilia hardly even rate.
| I'm not seeing you running around frothing about it.
Actually, I heard he took them up on the offer.
--
Dark Angel
"Are you seeing anyone?"
"Not unless you count all the bartenders in town"
Vapid Shell Me
>On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 12:45:42 GMT, Mike Given <asp...@gipco.org>
>wrote:
>
>>Sharon B wrote:
>>>miguel <the...@newsguy.com> wrote:
major snippage:
>HOWEVER, net cretins and loons kookfarting in one's inbox does not a
>correspondence make, AS PER DEFINITION.
>
>My comment in this thread was very specific to whatever cretin it is
>running around anonymously posting Brenda's love letters, who then
>acted silly by calling forging her from: line criminal.
Brenda is reposting love letters she has written as well as love
letters she has received from her husband.
The forged reposts of Brenda love letters to Anakin aka Jackie Tokeman
were not private emails, but were public letters posted across at
least 4 newsgroups.
If you gag & spew, please turn the other way. No splashes on my
Rockports.
>He/she isn't breaking the law. He/she is ENTIRELY lame for posting
>private correspondence.
It wasn't private, see above. But there was no way for you to know
that unless you had waded through a couple of years of backposts.
>That Miguel got his boxers all bunched over something that never
>pertained to him and jumped in with both feet all out of whack
>frothing at me and (f)laming me over several post cycles.
I don't repost private email I receive except for the anonymous
asshole hate mail stuff that comes unwelcomed. I'll do whatever I
want with that.
>I am amused and confused.
That's a prerequisite for successful usenet participation.
>>>--she who has been called a pedophile /dozens/ of times
>>
>> Yah, well, I just got an email offering to help me enlarge my breasts,
>>so false accusations of pedophilia hardly even rate.
>
>I'm not seeing you running around frothing about it.
VSM - that's 'cause Mikey wants 'em. <g>
Vapid Shell Me
Chaney, aka Mister Gunnykins Ž) wrote:
>On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 20:28:20 GMT, m...@dbtech.net (Vapid Shell Me)
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 15:10:42 -0400, Sharon B <sha...@lart.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 12:45:42 GMT, Mike Given <asp...@gipco.org>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Sharon B wrote:
>>>>>miguel <the...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>> Yah, well, I just got an email offering to help me enlarge my breasts,
>>>>so false accusations of pedophilia hardly even rate.
>>>
>>>I'm not seeing you running around frothing about it.
>>
>>VSM - that's 'cause Mikey wants 'em. <g>
>
>Dark Angel said that already. :)
Yeah, but did Dark Angel make the same deal with Mikey that I did?
VSM - I get 'em on alternate weekends.
Mike Given
>Mike Given <asp...@gipco.org> wrote:
>>Sharon B wrote:
>>>miguel <the...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>>Sharon B wrote:
>>>>>miguel wrote:
>>>>>>Sharon B wrote:
>>>>>>>miguel wrote:
>>>>>>>>Sharon B wrote:
>>Yes, it is, depending on whom that correspondence comes
>>from and what is written therein. Polite correspondence
>>sent to me in confidence is not shared publicly nor will
>>it ever be,
>Correspondence is, by definition, friendly and civil.
Er, 'no', it's not. The definition of correspondence makes no
mention of whether or not the pen (or other input device) used to
compose it is poisoned or not.
>>however, not all correspondence falls into that category.
>You are mistaken.
Whereas my being mistaken is not terribly unusual, in this case I'm
pretty much right on the money, honey.
>correspondence:
>1. Friendly intercourse; reciprocal exchange of civilities;
>especially, intercourse between persons by means of letters.
>Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996,
>1998 MICRA, Inc.
I do so love dictionary dicksize wars.
My hardcopy Oxford American begs to differ, as does
www.dictionary.com *and* www.m-w.com.
Ergo, your dictionary is in desperate need of an upgrade if you're
to keep up with my particular level of lexical pedantry.
[...]
>>>Get thee over to dictionary.com. When you get there, look up
>>>'defamation' and 'correspondence'.
>>Don't need a dictionary for simple shit like that,
>Apparently some *do*.
ObSelf-Promotion: I have a most excellently rated eidetic quotient;
the only time my memory seems to consistently fail me is when I'm a
bit boozed-up and I'm trying to recall some particularly pretty
female's name.
>>and in any case, only one of those terms is even vaguely
>>applicable here. When you write email (or even old-fashioned
>>hard-copy snail mail) the (e)mail in question becomes property
>>of the recipient, not the sender.
>AFAIK. There /is/ debate on the other side about copyright
>infringement and one ISP (English, IIRC) does have that as part
>of their TOS.
I can't speak much to Brit law, but the only instance I can
formulate as a *possible* copyright violation in the YooEss would be
if I were to claim the prose contained in an email sent to me by
someone else as my own work.
>>Ergo, the recipient may do with it as (s)he pleases. If the
>>sender has written something defamatory about him/her self in
>>that (e)mail, that's his or her problem, not the recipient's
>>problem.
>How can someone defame *themself*?
You, an alleged regular of a.u.k, are asking me?
Of course, it's more correctly referred to as self-immolation or
self-deprecation, but self-defamation wouldn't be so far out of line
as hyphenates go.
>That is just silly.
Of course, but that doesn't make it invalid as a possiblity.
>>>>If you have some rationale to support why such an email
>>>>ought be kept private, do feel free to offer it.
>>>If you have some rationale to support why you can't use
>>>normal English correctly in a sentence, do feel free to
>>>offer it.
>>All of the above parsed pretty cleanly to me.
[...]
>It reads to *me* (and someone will clarify if I'm in error)
>that Miguel is complaining about Chaney calling him a pedophile
>in an unsolicited email that Chaney sent *to* Miguel.
In terms of clarification, it seems to me that trumpet-boi made no
mention of who it was sent him an email he feels the need to
"air-out".
>That would be neither correspondence *or* defamation, since
>Chaney can't defame Miguel *to* Miguel. That is silly.
It certainly is correspondence, but not defamation unless the email
was cc'ed or bcc'ed to other parties.
>>>Also, when you have some rationale to support getting
>>>your knickers all twisted over what some net.loon sez,
>>>feel free to offer that, too.
>>My former ISP used to forward the drivel complaining about me for
>>nothing more than to share its comedic value.
>Yah, mine do, too. Very amusing:-)
I had a pretty funny exchange with some character spamming for a
company that makes vinyl sex-dolls. When the ISP owner phoned me up
to tell me about the complaint he'd received he could barely spit out
the words in between fits of laughter.
>>Before the Great Hard
>>Drive Crash of 1999 I had a good collection of email sent to
>>me (or about me) from various sources that ranged from colorful
>>remarks on my ancestral lineage to beating and death threats,
>>pretty much any of which I would not feel in the least bit
>>guilty about sharing just for shits'n'giggles.
>Of course not. But what you are talking about is not, by
>definition, correspondence.
ObNeener: Is *too*.
>Taylor (owner of lart.com) got a REALLY funny one (he gets
>all the best ones) that we're all still laughing about:
>Richard the Stupid
Gots to be Bullis.
[...]
>The Maricopa County Prosecutor's Office was also amused.
Really? I think Larry should be *very* glad that they have a
sensayuma, else he could be doing fines and jail time for fraud.
Impersonating a court officer is very, very bad.
>Even more so as it turns out that the specific attorney
>he was impersonating had thumped him hard in a court case
>where Stupid Larry had sued the county and represented
>himself. I think the term used was "dismissed with
>prejudice".
That's just attorney-speak for "and don't come back, asshole!"
><holds sides laughing>
My particular fave was one that got all in a huff about beating my
ass over some nonsense about his defending free speech and my variety
thereof consisted of telling him to fuck off. Got an e-nasty-gram
stating that I would suffer a beating if I ever showed up near
Philadelphia.
When I explained that I've lived on the outskirts of Philly all my
life and I'd be happy to buy a round of beer at a locale of his
choosing, well wouldya believe I never got an answer back?
The nerve of some people, toying with my feelings like that.
>HOWEVER, net cretins and loons kookfarting in one's inbox
>does not a correspondence make, AS PER DEFINITION.
Um, dearie, don't look now but your CAPS LOCK key is sticking.
Oh, and you and your dictionary are both grossly misinformed too.
<cough>.
>My comment in this thread was very specific to whatever
>cretin it is running around anonymously posting Brenda's
>love letters, who then acted silly by calling forging her
>from: line criminal.
Ah. Missed all that; I don't much enjoy reading people who
regularly re-post other peoples lyrics, lame poetry, and stupid jokes
hence Brenda, Ilya, Rauni, and some few others tend to default to my
bozo-filter. Which is sort of a shame, 'cuz Bren can be very nice and
thoughtful on occasions but I just don't have the time to sift much
these days.
>He/she isn't breaking the law. He/she is ENTIRELY lame for posting
>private correspondence.
Can't argue with that even one little teeny tiny bit.
>That Miguel got his boxers all bunched over something that
>never pertained to him and jumped in with both feet all out
>of whack frothing at me and (f)laming me over several post
>cycles.
Again, didn't see much of it, but trumpet players are like that
sometimes. All those sore and chapped lips from the blowing,
dontchyaknow.
>I am amused and confused.
And you need a new dictionary that doesn't contain such inaccurate
definitions.
>>>--she who has been called a pedophile /dozens/ of times
>>Yah, well, I just got an email offering to help me enlarge
>>my breasts, so false accusations of pedophilia hardly even
>>rate.
>I'm not seeing you running around frothing about it.
I've recently (and publicly) been told that I don't froth much about
*anything*, which I find very disappointing. Make me sound so
dispassionate when really I'm just chock full of it.
But in the interest of non-self-promotion, I'll letchy'all draw your
own conclusions on that bit.
Mikey (..but if you've got nice tits I'll happily demonstrate.)
--
URL: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/newsmikey
Dark Angel
| On 23 Apr 2003 14:27:42 -0600, Dark Angel <anon...@nyx.net> wrote:
|>In soc.singles Sharon B <sha...@lart.com> wrote:
|>
|>| He/she isn't breaking the law. He/she is ENTIRELY lame for posting
|>| private correspondence.
|>
|>Except it isn't private correspondence. He/she is posting old
|>usenet posts Brenda made.
| Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
| Don't tell Sharon Bob, it's a seekrit.
Oops. Too late now.
|>|> Yah, well, I just got an email offering to help me enlarge my breasts,
|>|>so false accusations of pedophilia hardly even rate.
|>
|>| I'm not seeing you running around frothing about it.
|>
|>Actually, I heard he took them up on the offer.
| Now that's cold blooded.
My grandfather on my dad's size was a reptile.
Which might explain my fondness so sunning myself on hot rocks...
Dark Angel
| On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 20:28:20 GMT, m...@dbtech.net (Vapid Shell Me)
|>On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 15:10:42 -0400, Sharon B <sha...@lart.com> wrote:
|>
|>>On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 12:45:42 GMT, Mike Given <asp...@gipco.org>
|>>wrote:
|>>> Yah, well, I just got an email offering to help me enlarge my breasts,
|>>>so false accusations of pedophilia hardly even rate.
|>>
|>>I'm not seeing you running around frothing about it.
|>
|>VSM - that's 'cause Mikey wants 'em. <g>
| Dark Angel said that already. :)
Neener!!!
Dark Angel
| On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 20:53:28 GMT, gunh...@vegetus.pacbell.net (Steve
| Chaney, aka Mister Gunnykins Ž) wrote:
|>On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 20:28:20 GMT, m...@dbtech.net (Vapid Shell Me)
|>wrote:
|>
|>>On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 15:10:42 -0400, Sharon B <sha...@lart.com> wrote:
|>>
|>>>On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 12:45:42 GMT, Mike Given <asp...@gipco.org>
|>>>wrote:
|>>>> Yah, well, I just got an email offering to help me enlarge my breasts,
|>>>>so false accusations of pedophilia hardly even rate.
|>>>
|>>>I'm not seeing you running around frothing about it.
|>>
|>>VSM - that's 'cause Mikey wants 'em. <g>
|>
|>Dark Angel said that already. :)
| Yeah, but did Dark Angel make the same deal with Mikey that I did?
No need - I like me just the way I am.
| VSM - I get 'em on alternate weekends.
Eeeeeeeew!!! I wouldn't want them after Mikey's had 'em!
Sharon B
wrote:
>Sharon B wrote:
>>Mike Given <asp...@gipco.org> wrote:
>>>Sharon B wrote:
>>>>miguel <the...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>>>Sharon B wrote:
>>>>>>miguel wrote:
>>>>>>>Sharon B wrote:
>>>>>>>>miguel wrote:
>>>>>>>>>Sharon B wrote:
[...]
> Whereas my being mistaken is not terribly unusual, in this case I'm
>pretty much right on the money, honey.
>
>>correspondence:
>>1. Friendly intercourse; reciprocal exchange of civilities;
>>especially, intercourse between persons by means of letters.
>>Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996,
>>1998 MICRA, Inc.
>
> I do so love dictionary dicksize wars.
Yeah! And because you make me smile, *you* may call me "honey" and
"dearie" and get away with it.
> My hardcopy Oxford American begs to differ, as does
>www.dictionary.com *and* www.m-w.com.
AHEM
I lifted the definition *from* dictionary.com. Verbatim.
<http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=correspondence&db=*>
> Ergo, your dictionary is in desperate need of an upgrade if you're
>to keep up with my particular level of lexical pedantry.
I figger I kin hold my own :-)
[...]
> ObSelf-Promotion: I have a most excellently rated eidetic quotient;
>the only time my memory seems to consistently fail me is when I'm a
>bit boozed-up and I'm trying to recall some particularly pretty
>female's name.
There's an EQ measurement?
I can't remember names, either (that I'm told verbally, Usenet is
different)....and I seldom drink /anything/, so I can't even use that
as an excuse.
[...]
> I can't speak much to Brit law,
They have those really strange defamation laws, too....where even if
you're right, you're wrong.
<boggle>
>but the only instance I can
>formulate as a *possible* copyright violation in the YooEss would be
>if I were to claim the prose contained in an email sent to me by
>someone else as my own work.
IIRC from reading in nanae, it was the prevailing opinion but neither
one had been put to the litigation test.
[...]
>>How can someone defame *themself*?
>
> You, an alleged regular of a.u.k, are asking me?
> Of course, it's more correctly referred to as self-immolation or
>self-deprecation, but self-defamation wouldn't be so far out of line
>as hyphenates go.
Autoflame...or autospank
...and we assign alphabetical grading values to them.
[..]
> In terms of clarification, it seems to me that trumpet-boi made no
>mention of who it was sent him an email he feels the need to
>"air-out".
You are correct, and I sit corrected. I LEAPED to that conclusion
based on his use of the phrases indicating defamation because of being
called a pedophile, and seeing him running around frothing in soc.men
over Chaney calling him....a pedophile.
>>That would be neither correspondence *or* defamation, since
>>Chaney can't defame Miguel *to* Miguel. That is silly.
>
> It certainly is correspondence, but not defamation unless the email
>was cc'ed or bcc'ed to other parties.
Hard to say. He keeps changing his story around and using word
substitutions. It's gone from "calling" to "suggesting" and withdrawn
the "defamation", for example.
In any event, ya can't win money just because yer being defamed.
[...]
> I had a pretty funny exchange with some character spamming for a
>company that makes vinyl sex-dolls. When the ISP owner phoned me up
>to tell me about the complaint he'd received he could barely spit out
>the words in between fits of laughter.
You ate his account, didn't you?
<grin>
You read like a nanae-ite.
Lysander Spooner is my idol. I'm glad he's returned after his long
hiatus.
<http://howardk.moonfall.com/lysander/>
>>>Before the Great Hard
>>>Drive Crash of 1999 I had a good collection of email sent to
>>>me (or about me) from various sources that ranged from colorful
>>>remarks on my ancestral lineage to beating and death threats,
>>>pretty much any of which I would not feel in the least bit
>>>guilty about sharing just for shits'n'giggles.
>>Of course not. But what you are talking about is not, by
>>definition, correspondence.
>
> ObNeener: Is *too*.
neener DENIED
You can't place your third level definition above my number 1 and 2
definitions BECAUSE one and two come before three.
Nyah. This is called, Big Bird Logic.
[...]
> Gots to be Bullis.
The depth of his infamy never ceases to amaze me. Where did you run
across him? Your nym is familiar, and I think from AUK, but a lot of
people pop in and out there.
>[...]
>>The Maricopa County Prosecutor's Office was also amused.
>
> Really? I think Larry should be *very* glad that they have a
>sensayuma, else he could be doing fines and jail time for fraud.
>Impersonating a court officer is very, very bad.
From what Marty sez (he was in contact with them), they *did* yank a
knot in his tail, but not the knot they could've.
[...]
> My particular fave was one that got all in a huff about beating my
>ass over some nonsense about his defending free speech and my variety
>thereof consisted of telling him to fuck off. Got an e-nasty-gram
>stating that I would suffer a beating if I ever showed up near
>Philadelphia.
> When I explained that I've lived on the outskirts of Philly all my
>life and I'd be happy to buy a round of beer at a locale of his
>choosing, well wouldya believe I never got an answer back?
> The nerve of some people, toying with my feelings like that.
I understand your pain....and you still read like a nanae-ite.
[...]
> Um, dearie, don't look now but your CAPS LOCK key is sticking.
IT IS NOT
...I spent two hours detailing it with a toothpick just a couple
months ago. I got out the armor all and EVERYTHING.
> Oh, and you and your dictionary are both grossly misinformed too.
> <cough>.
cough DENIED
The word you are looking for is 'communication', not 'correspondence'.
<blows raspberry>
[...]
> Ah. Missed all that; I don't much enjoy reading people who
>regularly re-post other peoples lyrics, lame poetry, and stupid jokes
>hence Brenda, Ilya, Rauni, and some few others tend to default to my
>bozo-filter. Which is sort of a shame, 'cuz Bren can be very nice and
>thoughtful on occasions but I just don't have the time to sift much
>these days.
They have to be really prolific /and/ boring to make it into
mine....like Carmello. All the snuh-ers are in there.
If you plonk them all, you miss the Cartooney Threats, which I always
find amusing.
[...]
> Again, didn't see much of it, but trumpet players are like that
>sometimes. All those sore and chapped lips from the blowing,
>dontchyaknow.
I had my Kook Parser on (for Chaney) when I read his last froth, and
it says that Miguel was in alt.config being a butthead, one of the
alt.configgers bcc'd him and others (obvious troll) in an email to a
third party. He published it in alt.config, and they charcoaled him
to a very black briquette.
I dunno that the woman whose email he published /was/ an alt.config
reg, I've never known the alt.configgers to play email games...but I
do know they regularly make chew toys out of people who drop in being
buttheads....if there's anything left of them, they ship the remains
to AUK.
So, my Kook Parser (always subject to error) sez his azz is still
stinging over the spanking he took there on this issue.
>>I am amused and confused.
>
> And you need a new dictionary that doesn't contain such inaccurate
>definitions.
I remain UNspanked :-P
[...]
> I've recently (and publicly) been told that I don't froth much about
>*anything*, which I find very disappointing.
Affected frothing is okay, real frothing is just goofy looking. Ever
see those people who get in (verbal) arguments in public and start
screaming and name calling and making scenes and you think to
yourself, "WOT a goofy lunatic!"?
You don't want to look goofy unintentionally, do you?
>Make me sound so
>dispassionate when really I'm just chock full of it.
I'll take that as a request that I do /not/ forward my viagra spams to
you.
> But in the interest of non-self-promotion, I'll letchy'all draw your
>own conclusions on that bit.
ITYM, "lecher'all"
>Mikey (..but if you've got nice tits I'll happily demonstrate.)
<looks down>
I can't say they really do anything for *me*.
Sharon B
>Sharon B wrote:
>>Mike Given wrote:
>>>Sharon B wrote:
>>>>miguel wrote:
>>>>>Sharon B wrote:
>>>>>>miguel wrote:
>>>>>>>Sharon B wrote:
>>>>>>>>miguel wrote:
>>>>>>>>>Sharon B wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>posting people's private correspondence is ENTIRELY
>>>>>>>>>>lame.
>
>>> Yes, it is, depending on whom that correspondence comes from and what
>>>is written therein. Polite correspondence sent to me in confidence is
>>>not shared publicly nor will it ever be,
>
>>Correspondence is, by definition, friendly and civil.
>
>>>however, not all correspondence
>>>falls into that category.
>
>>You are mistaken.
>
>>correspondence:
>>1. Friendly intercourse; reciprocal exchange of civilities;
>>especially, intercourse between persons by means of letters.
>
>>Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA,
>>Inc.
>
>100% lame.
<cannot believe you are arguing with the dictionary>
I am so sorry that words don't mean what you want them to. I suggest
you persuade Webster's to see things Miguel's Way.
>If a letter or email is uncivil and thus is not
>"correspondence" what is it?
I almost never play remedial English teacher....you just got lucky.
I await your retraction....or are you going to continue to argue with
the dictionary with your "because I say so" line?
[...]
>>It reads to *me* (and someone will clarify if I'm in error) that
>>Miguel is complaining about Chaney calling him a pedophile in an
>>unsolicited email that Chaney sent *to* Miguel.
>
>Not even close.
>
>>That would be neither correspondence *or* defamation, since Chaney
>>can't defame Miguel *to* Miguel. That is silly.
>
>That is, as a matter of law, technically correct. So you're
>batting one for three. Good job.
2 for 3, the two being factually correct, the incorrect one being
mistaken interpretation of your words. Remedial math is around the
corner.
>>That Miguel got his boxers all bunched over something that never
>>pertained to him and jumped in with both feet all out of whack
>>frothing at me and (f)laming me over several post cycles.
>
>>I am amused and confused.
>
>I think you old skoolers who yammer on about your old skool
>absolutes have trouble sometimes thinking for yourselves.
Very interesting....you're setting off my Kook Parser.
>The case I was referring to was one Judith Fitzgerald, aka
>Zoe, a former regular in alt.config, who sent email to jim
>dutton suggesting he was a pedophile.
^^^^^^^^^^
First it was "calling" and "defaming", now it's
"suggesting".....beginning to sound less and less and less like
"defamation".
>For reasons known
>only to her, Zoe cc'd me and a few others with that email.
>I posted her email in alt.config.
BRILLIANT plan!!
[um..that was sarcasm]
I'm reading your words. Really. Unfortunately, my Kook Parser is
also turned on for Chaney, and what *it's* saying is, "I was being a
butthead in alt.config and they made me their chewtoy (as they are
wont to do), flaming me into a crispy briquette (as they are wont to
do)...and when I read your post I was overcome with memories of the
humiliation I suffered at their hands and jumped onto your post with
both feet to try and exact retribution cuz you sound like them."
You can't argue with the dictionary without looking silly, but you
/can/ argue with my Kook Parser.
*I* wouldn't have published Zoe's email, I would've thought it a
rather obvious troll....which you apparently bit on, but it wasn't
correspondence *if* it occurred as you stated...which is doubtful
given how I keep catching you changing your words around.
[...]
>Now, if you can give me some reasonable argument why I
>should not have published her cc'd email to me, have at it.
You mean, other than it SCREAMING "this is a troll"?
You keep trying to deflect, sparky. Ain't happening.
>If you want to backpeddle and claim that you were only
>speaking of "friendly, civil" email
*I* was speaking of correspondence. *You* are staging Flame Platforms
based on your misunderstanding/misrepresentation of common English
words. *I* don't speak Miguel-ese. I suggest you break the word down
into its components and see if they make better sense to you that
way....or hire a tutor.
The only backpeddling going on is by *you* with your withdrawal of the
term "defamation", changing "calling" to "suggesting" and attempting
to argue with Webster's over definitions.
>I will let you off the
>hook.
I suspect you'll follow me around humping my replies to others to get
me to discuss your Topic of Some Importance...oh, wait...that *is*
what you're doing (am I good or WOT?);
....the Topic of Some Importance *being* the massive beating you took
at the hands of the alt.configgers, likely for acting like a frothy
f*ckhead.
I dunno what else you were doing over there, nor do I care, but I
highly doubt posting one blind cc'd email that was likely a troll to
begin with would cause them to set upon you.
I surmise there was nothing left, or they would've shipped your
remains to auk (as they are wont to do).
You are free to argue with my Kook Parser, it is not infallible. It
does, however, keep a nice dance tempo.
Sharon B
>In soc.singles Sharon B <sha...@lart.com> wrote:
>
>| He/she isn't breaking the law. He/she is ENTIRELY lame for posting
>| private correspondence.
>
>Except it isn't private correspondence. He/she is posting old
>usenet posts Brenda made.
Fair Game, then.
My mistake for ASSuming, but I stand by my statement that posting
private correspondence is ENTIRELY lame....and forging email addresses
is NOT a crime.
*snurf*
>|> Yah, well, I just got an email offering to help me enlarge my breasts,
>|>so false accusations of pedophilia hardly even rate.
>
>| I'm not seeing you running around frothing about it.
>
>Actually, I heard he took them up on the offer.
*snarf*
"man boobs"
I dunno /why/ but that always cracks me up
Sharon B
>On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 15:10:42 -0400, Sharon B <sha...@lart.com> wrote:
[...]
>Brenda is reposting love letters she has written as well as love
>letters she has received from her husband.
<raises eyebrows>
must.....restrain....my....self.....GAH
Okay. I can't stop. WHY?
>The forged reposts of Brenda love letters to Anakin aka Jackie Tokeman
>were not private emails, but were public letters posted across at
>least 4 newsgroups.
>
>If you gag & spew, please turn the other way. No splashes on my
>Rockports.
No worries, I haven't cleaned the creek mud off my New Balance yet. I
think there might be deer carcass on them, too. I drooled over the
Rockports, cuz they were purdier (I'm drooling over yours now)...but
the marathon mailman friend of mine said 'new balance', so....
Old feet SUCK. When I was 16, I'd walk miles and miles and miles in
my flip flops EVERY DAY (because that is how one gets from point A to
point B where busses don't run)....and NEVER a problem.
This year, for SOME <cough--old feet--cough> reason, my cheapie canvas
sneakers wore not one, but FIVE blisters....ON ONE FOOT...and after
only a couple miles....and after throwing arch supports and cushions
in them, so I had to break down and spend money. Feh.
[...]
>I don't repost private email I receive except for the anonymous
>asshole hate mail stuff that comes unwelcomed. I'll do whatever I
>want with that.
..which is why I specifically chose the word "correspondence", but I
think he tattled on himself as to why he's dancing so hard.
>>I am amused and confused.
>
>That's a prerequisite for successful usenet participation.
<grin>
and a deep appreciation for spectator sports, like dancing.
Mike Given
>Mike Given <news...@comcast.net>wrote:
>>Sharon B wrote:
>>>Mike Given <asp...@gipco.org> wrote:
>>>>Sharon B wrote:
>>Ergo, your dictionary is in desperate need of an
>>upgrade if you're to keep up with my particular
>>level of lexical pedantry.
>I figger I kin hold my own :-)
.JPEG?
>[...]
>>ObSelf-Promotion: I have a most excellently rated
>>eidetic quotient; the only time my memory seems to
>>consistently fail me is when I'm a bit boozed-up
>>and I'm trying to recall some particularly pretty
>>female's name.
>There's an EQ measurement?
Yeppers. My IQ isn't terribly high (128 via Stanford-Binet in 1975)
but subsequent verbal reasoning and EQ tests landed me a "gifted" rating
anyways. Personally, I think I was so placed to keep me out of trouble;
the 'rents were pushing for it because my Mischief Quotient as a
young'un probably pinged off the scale.
ObI'mGoingToHell: At the very least it had gotten a
polite-yet-imperative request from pastor and Mother Superior that I
would be happier in the public school system - something about a missing
box of communion wine and five (including mysef) drunken altar boys.
>I can't remember names, either (that I'm told verbally,
>Usenet is different)....and I seldom drink /anything/,
>so I can't even use that as an excuse.
Oooh, a lightweight. We should go on a date sometime; saves on the
Rufinol expenses.
>>I can't speak much to Brit law,
>They have those really strange defamation laws, too....where
>even if you're right, you're wrong.
><boggle>
The whole Godfrey vs. Demon lawsuit was definitely a bit scary; that
an ISP could be held liable for information on public fora is defintely
to boggle about.
>>>How can someone defame *themself*?
>>You, an alleged regular of a.u.k, are asking me?
>>Of course, it's more correctly referred to as self-immolation
>>or self-deprecation, but self-defamation wouldn't be so far
>>out of line as hyphenates go.
>Autoflame...or autospank
>...and we assign alphabetical grading values to them.
You should probably convert to a 0-10 scale for how bad your sides
hurt after laughing at a fyne kook poste.
[...]
>In any event, ya can't win money just because yer being defamed.
If memory serves, La*r*nce G*dfr*y got a quarter of a million in
YooKay pounds (around 400 US kilobucks) from Demon in 1999, and that on
merits of a forged post on Usenet. I don't recall any cases being
brought in the YooEss; in the Lunney vs Prodigy case Prodigy got
themselves off the hook pretty easily. Not sure whether or not they
were forced to reveal who it was actually opened the accounts though.
>>I had a pretty funny exchange with some character spamming
>>for a company that makes vinyl sex-dolls. When the ISP
>>owner phoned me up to tell me about the complaint he'd
>>received he could barely spit out the words in between
>>fits of laughter.
>You ate his account, didn't you?
Nah. Itsa "no harm, no foul" thing in my book.
><grin>
>You read like a nanae-ite.
Oh, something like that; there's an (allegedly reformed) spammer of
some notariety what makes his home in the Philly Metro area. I may or
may not have been at least partially responsible for a few minor pranks
in dealing with said individual.
>Lysander Spooner is my idol. I'm glad he's returned after
>his long hiatus.
><http://howardk.moonfall.com/lysander/>
I would probably have to confess to certain similarities in style Rick
and I seem to share; impeccable editing and dirty-minded irreverence to
name a couple.
[...]
>>>Of course not. But what you are talking about is not, by
>>>definition, correspondence.
>>ObNeener: Is *too*.
>neener DENIED
>You can't place your third level definition above my number
>1 and 2 definitions BECAUSE one and two come before three.
Geez, Louise. There is some difference between pedantry and mere
obfuscation ya know.
>Nyah. This is called, Big Bird Logic.
By that "logic", I can claim that I am having intercourse with you
right this very moment. In public, even.
>[...]
>>Gots to be Bullis.
>The depth of his infamy never ceases to amaze me. Where did
>you run across him? Your nym is familiar, and I think from
>AUK, but a lot of people pop in and out there.
Mostly from a.u.k; I developed something of a dislike for Jesness and
became consequently acquainted with Bullis' antics roundabouts that
time. In any case, I used to roam-lurk in lots of different places in
days gone by when I had that sort of spare time.
[..who's gonna beat me up today?]
>>When I explained that I've lived on the outskirts of Philly
>>all my life and I'd be happy to buy a round of beer at a
>>locale of his choosing, well wouldya believe I never got an
>>answer back?
>>The nerve of some people, toying with my feelings like that.
>I understand your pain....and you still read like a nanae-ite.
There's a good reason for that and probably several good reasons why
I don't talk much about it publicly.
[...]
>>Oh, and you and your dictionary are both grossly
>>misinformed too.
>><cough>.
>cough DENIED
You really are cute in CAPS, ya know.
>The word you are looking for is 'communication', not
>'correspondence'.
You just keep tellin' yerself that.
><blows raspberry>
Ah, a sexual proclivity for fresh fruit, eh? Just FYI, if you're
trying to turn me on I think doing a banana would work much better.
[...]
>I dunno that the woman whose email he published /was/ an
>alt.config reg, I've never known the alt.configgers to play
>email games...but I do know they regularly make chew toys
>out of people who drop in being buttheads....if there's
>anything left of them, they ship the remains to AUK.
>So, my Kook Parser (always subject to error) sez his azz
>is still stinging over the spanking he took there on this
>issue.
I can't say as I read much of that exchange at all (and also far too
lazy to Google it all up), but knowing what I know and at least some few
of the parties involved I'd have to refrain from offering much of an
opinion one way or the other save to say that you *might* wanna tighten
the calibration on that meter of your'n.
>>>I am amused and confused.
>>And you need a new dictionary that doesn't contain such
>>inaccurate definitions.
>I remain UNspanked :-P
Is that disappointment I hear?
I mean, I'm not much for that sorta kink but if you're buying the
booze I might be persuaded to oblige.
>>I've recently (and publicly) been told that I don't froth
>>much about *anything*, which I find very disappointing.
>Affected frothing is okay, real frothing is just goofy
>looking. Ever see those people who get in (verbal)
>arguments in public and start screaming and name calling
>and making scenes and you think to yourself, "WOT a goofy
>lunatic!"?
Having performed duties as a doorman in a "gentleman's club" I feel I
can safely say that there's a strong likelihood I'm very much acquainted
with the situation you describe.
>You don't want to look goofy unintentionally, do you?
What I might want is no guarantee versus my intention one way or the
other. Which is to say, yah, I'm goofy sometimes - wanna make something
of it?
>>Make me sound so dispassionate when really I'm just chock
>>full of it.
>I'll take that as a request that I do /not/ forward my viagra
>spams to you.
I and my (horndawg) prostate have nothing but appreciation for your
discretion in such matters. But I'm still waiting to see if someone
gets a mouthful of bait on my above quoted too.
>>But in the interest of non-self-promotion, I'll letchy'all
>>draw your own conclusions on that bit.
>ITYM, "lecher'all"
Well, the pronunciation might be a bit off but the spelling is
probably much more accurately representative.
>>(..but if you've got nice tits I'll happily demonstrate.)
><looks down>
>I can't say they really do anything for *me*.
Well, it looks like a .JPEG would definitely be in order then.
Mikey (..but an .MPEG on a trampoline wood be better.)
John Fereira
news:81gfavo5s3qu9nnmm...@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 20:28:20 GMT, m...@dbtech.net (Vapid Shell Me)
> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 15:10:42 -0400, Sharon B <sha...@lart.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>>Brenda is reposting love letters she has written as well as love
>>letters she has received from her husband.
>
> <raises eyebrows>
>
> must.....restrain....my....self.....GAH
>
> Okay. I can't stop. WHY?
She's been reading the message boards on self-acceptance.to?
>
>>The forged reposts of Brenda love letters to Anakin aka Jackie Tokeman
>>were not private emails, but were public letters posted across at
>>least 4 newsgroups.
While posting of love letters from your mate might seem a bit out there
(assuming that these were not forgeries either) going to other groups to
find articles posted by someone that you dislike and reposting them here
seems a bit obsessive, don't you think?
>>
>>If you gag & spew, please turn the other way. No splashes on my
>>Rockports.
>
> No worries, I haven't cleaned the creek mud off my New Balance yet. I
> think there might be deer carcass on them, too. I drooled over the
> Rockports, cuz they were purdier (I'm drooling over yours now)...but
> the marathon mailman friend of mine said 'new balance', so....
>
> Old feet SUCK. When I was 16, I'd walk miles and miles and miles in
> my flip flops EVERY DAY (because that is how one gets from point A to
> point B where busses don't run)....and NEVER a problem.
>
> This year, for SOME <cough--old feet--cough> reason, my cheapie canvas
> sneakers wore not one, but FIVE blisters....ON ONE FOOT...and after
> only a couple miles....and after throwing arch supports and cushions
> in them, so I had to break down and spend money. Feh.
Old feet need real hiking boots. I've got a pair of Chippewa
(www.chippewaboots.com) waterproof boots that I bought a couple of years
ago that I really like. The don't seem to make the model I have anymore
but these look real nice:
http://www.chippewaboots.com/boots/searchdefault.asp?id=25920
They're very comfortable, will keep your feet dry, and made in the U.S.A.
I think I paid about $140 for them but they're worth it. Some of the "big
name" (ie. Asolo, Vasque) might cost considerably more.
>
> [...]
>>I don't repost private email I receive except for the anonymous
>>asshole hate mail stuff that comes unwelcomed. I'll do whatever I
>>want with that.
>
> ..which is why I specifically chose the word "correspondence", but I
> think he tattled on himself as to why he's dancing so hard.
My impression on your exchange between yourself, Mike, and Miguel was that
you primarily have a semantic quibble over the the specific words used.
You seem to be able to hold your side of an argument fairly well and the
pedantry over "correspondance" vs. "communication" only makes you look
petty.
>
>>>I am amused and confused.
>>
>>That's a prerequisite for successful usenet participation.
>
> <grin>
> and a deep appreciation for spectator sports, like dancing.
>
Dirty dancing?
Vapid Shell Me
>On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 20:28:20 GMT, m...@dbtech.net (Vapid Shell Me)
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 15:10:42 -0400, Sharon B <sha...@lart.com> wrote:
>
>[...]
>>Brenda is reposting love letters she has written as well as love
>>letters she has received from her husband.
>
><raises eyebrows>
>
>must.....restrain....my....self.....GAH
>
>Okay. I can't stop. WHY?
To lead us into a deeper understanding of love notes.
>>The forged reposts of Brenda love letters to Anakin aka Jackie Tokeman
>>were not private emails, but were public letters posted across at
>>least 4 newsgroups.
>>
>>If you gag & spew, please turn the other way. No splashes on my
>>Rockports.
>
>No worries, I haven't cleaned the creek mud off my New Balance yet. I
>think there might be deer carcass on them, too. I drooled over the
>Rockports, cuz they were purdier (I'm drooling over yours now)...but
>the marathon mailman friend of mine said 'new balance', so....
Creek mud is only allowed on the hiking boots. Well, that and my ass
when I occasionally do the unexpected sitdown.
>Old feet SUCK. When I was 16, I'd walk miles and miles and miles in
>my flip flops EVERY DAY (because that is how one gets from point A to
>point B where busses don't run)....and NEVER a problem.
During my wasted youth it was Keds. Who knew that tennis shoes
options would become what they are today? Evidently Keds didn't.
>This year, for SOME <cough--old feet--cough> reason, my cheapie canvas
>sneakers wore not one, but FIVE blisters....ON ONE FOOT...and after
>only a couple miles....and after throwing arch supports and cushions
>in them, so I had to break down and spend money. Feh.
I get those expensive socks at the sports shoe stores that provide the
extra cushion. I don't like anything else in my shoes. I walk/jog
several miles a day and they work well for me.
>[...]
>>I don't repost private email I receive except for the anonymous
>>asshole hate mail stuff that comes unwelcomed. I'll do whatever I
>>want with that.
>
>..which is why I specifically chose the word "correspondence", but I
>think he tattled on himself as to why he's dancing so hard.
It appears the disagreement is mostly semantics. But, without
semantic wars, usenet volume would go down 34%.
>>>I am amused and confused.
>>
>>That's a prerequisite for successful usenet participation.
>
><grin>
>and a deep appreciation for spectator sports, like dancing.
VSM - can't dance in flip-flops.
Sharon B
>Sharon B wrote:
>>miguel wrote:
>>>Sharon B wrote:
>>>>Mike Given wrote:
>>>>>Sharon B wrote:
>>>>>>miguel wrote:
>>>>>>>Sharon B wrote:
>>>>>>>>miguel wrote:
>>>>>>>>>Sharon B wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>miguel wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>Sharon B wrote:
[...]
>Keep trotting out your dictionary. It's a most effective
>ploy.
Thank you. Even more effective when I do it and your only counter
over several post cycles is "because I said so".
[..]
>Answer the question?
I don't do requests; you will have to DYOFR.
[...]
>When you first showed up here I thought you held some
>promise as an interesting and intelligent poster.
Since I first saw your nym pop up in xposts some months ago I have
been worrying myself sick over what opinion you were forming of me.
>But, it
>appears, you're another wannabe. You try to use a sharp
>tongue to compensate for your laziness, and you are like a
>lot of the worst judges I've been before -- those who hear
>five or six words about a case and think with their vast
>real-world experience they must have a complete
>understanding of the whole matter.
I'm really not interested in your RL....unless you're a Grubor.
_Attack of the 50 Foot Grubor_
copyright A. Nellis 1997
<http://www.panix.com/~tori/humor/50ft.html>
>You've made enough
>incorrect assumptions in this thread alone to warrant
>healthy skepticism about your intelligence and/or
>reasonableness.
I'm stung. Really.
>If you can get off your ass for a moment and go back and
>review the dealings in alt.config, you might be surprised to
>find who was whose chewtoy.
Prolly not, nor am I interested enough in your old flame war to go
google grepping for it. I note your bravery in xposting this to
alt.config, preferring not to lame them or make claims where they
can't see it.
[...]
>>You mean, other than it SCREAMING "this is a troll"?
>>You keep trying to deflect, sparky. Ain't happening.
>
>Tell me precisely what factors suggest to you that the email
>screamed "this is a troll." Vague reference to your kook
>parser will not suffice.
>
>Tapping foot . . .
<raises eyebrows in amusement>
Ask nicely and maybe I'll tell you.
Or maybe not.
[...]
>IOW: my dictionary can beat up your dictionary.
I wouldn't know. I have yet to see yours.
[...]
>Actually, I what took issue with was your grandiose
>old-skooler claim that "posting people's private
>correspondence is ENTIRELY lame."
Yes, I *had* noticed that. "I what took issue" with you.
You prolly noticed that.
[...]
>I set upon one of their regulars--Zoe--seeing in her some of
>the same raging self-satisfied ego issues I see in you,
OIC. *You* were trolling alt.config. "Set upon" her, didja?
>and
>in less than a month she had Removed Herself From Usenet
>Altogether.
*You* ran an alt.configger off the 'net, huh?
Did you destroy just one alt.configger or the entire ng? The reason I
ask is your previous use of the plural 'old skoolers'.
>You, I believe, would be a harder target,
>because you don't radiate the same emotional fragility Zoe
>projected.
You know how much I value your opinion of me.
>But your certitude is very much the same as
>hers. Stupid.
You are quite the accomplished name caller. Stupid, kook,
'chaney-esque'. I might have to run off the net in fear.
>>I surmise there was nothing left, or they would've shipped your
>>remains to auk (as they are wont to do).
>
>Yet they didn't and here I am. Are we learning anything
>yet?
No. Is that the royal "we"?
Please instruct me in the art of trolling and flaming, you Big Bad
Destroyer of Netters, you.
*snark*
>>You are free to argue with my Kook Parser, it is not infallible. It
>>does, however, keep a nice dance tempo.
>
>You could probably use some serious deflation.
*yawn*
I prefer threats directed at me to be, well, direct...no wishy washy
implied crap.
The Danimal
> It appears the disagreement is mostly semantics. But, without
> semantic wars, usenet volume would go down 34%.
That depends on what you mean by "semantic."
-- the Danimal, let's argue
p.s. with another 34% being sementic (i.e., dicksize) wars.
Vapid Shell Me
>m...@dbtech.net (Vapid Shell Me) wrote in message news:<3ea82051...@news.dbtech.net>...
>> It appears the disagreement is mostly semantics. But, without
>> semantic wars, usenet volume would go down 34%.
>
>That depends on what you mean by "semantic."
It means exactly what I say it means, nothing more, nothing less.
Your only choice is to agree with me.
>-- the Danimal, let's argue
Now I can't. To do so, would be an inadvertant agreement and we can't
have that.
>p.s. with another 34% being sementic (i.e., dicksize) wars.
Good one.
VSM - Of course, the actual figure is only 33%.
Sharon B
wrote:
>Sharon B wrote:
>>Mike Given <news...@comcast.net>wrote:
>>>Sharon B wrote:
>>>>Mike Given <asp...@gipco.org> wrote:
>>>>>Sharon B wrote:
>[.."correspondence"..]
>>>Ergo, your dictionary is in desperate need of an
>>>upgrade if you're to keep up with my particular
>>>level of lexical pedantry.
>>I figger I kin hold my own :-)
>
> .JPEG?
HAR. Troll :-)
[...]
>>There's an EQ measurement?
>
> Yeppers. My IQ isn't terribly high (128 via Stanford-Binet in 1975)
>but subsequent verbal reasoning and EQ tests landed me a "gifted" rating
>anyways. Personally, I think I was so placed to keep me out of trouble;
>the 'rents were pushing for it because my Mischief Quotient as a
>young'un probably pinged off the scale.
<grin>
It's the little sh*ts that make the most interesting adults, IMHO.
> ObI'mGoingToHell: At the very least it had gotten a
>polite-yet-imperative request from pastor and Mother Superior that I
>would be happier in the public school system - something about a missing
>box of communion wine and five (including mysef) drunken altar boys.
You are not supposed to get /caught/.
>>I can't remember names, either (that I'm told verbally,
>>Usenet is different)....and I seldom drink /anything/,
>>so I can't even use that as an excuse.
>
> Oooh, a lightweight. We should go on a date sometime; saves on the
>Rufinol expenses.
Clealy, sir has me confused with someone stupid enough to sip from a
container that has left her line of sight.
I larned that when I had it pulled on me as a bar-hoppin'
teen....unfortunately for him I was a Very Bad Teen thus he didn't
dose anywhere NEAR high enough :-)
>>>I can't speak much to Brit law,
>>They have those really strange defamation laws, too....where
>>even if you're right, you're wrong.
>><boggle>
>
> The whole Godfrey vs. Demon lawsuit was definitely a bit scary; that
>an ISP could be held liable for information on public fora is defintely
>to boggle about.
I was more boggling over the fact that it can /be/ the truth but if it
causes them damage they can *still* win. WTF?
[...]
> You should probably convert to a 0-10 scale for how bad your sides
>hurt after laughing at a fyne kook poste.
I like ye olde english
>[...]
>>In any event, ya can't win money just because yer being defamed.
>
> If memory serves, La*r*nce G*dfr*y got a quarter of a million in
>YooKay pounds (around 400 US kilobucks) from Demon in 1999, and that on
>merits of a forged post on Usenet. I don't recall any cases being
>brought in the YooEss; in the Lunney vs Prodigy case Prodigy got
>themselves off the hook pretty easily. Not sure whether or not they
>were forced to reveal who it was actually opened the accounts though.
I should have specified US....my very bad. This has been beat to
death, then to dust in AUK. Winning the case and winning damages are
two entirely different things, according to the resident AUK sharks.
We don't get quite as many cartoony threats as nanae, but not a shabby
count. One of the astrology kooks just tried to sue AN ENTIRE NG of
posters last summer....HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
[...]
>><grin>
>>You read like a nanae-ite.
>
> Oh, something like that; there's an (allegedly reformed) spammer of
>some notariety what makes his home in the Philly Metro area. I may or
>may not have been at least partially responsible for a few minor pranks
>in dealing with said individual.
I think Phoenix pardoned him, as well.
>>Lysander Spooner is my idol. I'm glad he's returned after
>>his long hiatus.
>><http://howardk.moonfall.com/lysander/>
>
> I would probably have to confess to certain similarities in style Rick
>and I seem to share; impeccable editing and dirty-minded irreverence to
>name a couple.
*snarf*
You also read like an alt.slacker
<laces up my bestest tap dancin' shoes>
>[...]
>>>>Of course not. But what you are talking about is not, by
>>>>definition, correspondence.
>>>ObNeener: Is *too*.
>>neener DENIED
>>You can't place your third level definition above my number
>>1 and 2 definitions BECAUSE one and two come before three.
>
> Geez, Louise. There is some difference between pedantry and mere
>obfuscation ya know.
It all depends on how well I can obfuscate, OBVIOUSLY NOT GOOD ENOUGH.
I shoulda put those shoes on earlier :-)
>>Nyah. This is called, Big Bird Logic.
>
> By that "logic", I can claim that I am having intercourse with you
>right this very moment. In public, even.
Of course you can, this is Usenet....you can claim anything you want
:-P
>>[...]
>>>Gots to be Bullis.
>>The depth of his infamy never ceases to amaze me. Where did
>>you run across him? Your nym is familiar, and I think from
>>AUK, but a lot of people pop in and out there.
>
> Mostly from a.u.k; I developed something of a dislike for Jesness and
>became consequently acquainted with Bullis' antics roundabouts that
>time.
There are prolly a thousand Stupid posts over there right now. He and
Jesness got into a Kook Fight...over what Taylor's name is, of all
things.
I don't follow Jesness too much, other than the occasional "Hi Brad!"
when he posts thru a new remailer. He's got quite a following though,
the psych groups, hacker ng, auk.
>In any case, I used to roam-lurk in lots of different places in
>days gone by when I had that sort of spare time.
Hmmm....I'm certain you're understating your Usenet fame.
[...]
> There's a good reason for that and probably several good reasons why
>I don't talk much about it publicly.
I take no offense at people not wanting to divulge information.
Nosiness is a hillbilly thang, practiced out of curiosity and interest
rather than malice.
[...]
> You really are cute in CAPS, ya know.
You really are fun to play with, ya know.
Seriously. I quite enjoy the Just For Fun Flamefests....although at
least half the time I get my azz handed to me playing against the
net.ghods :-)
but that's ALL RIGHT cuz the other half I get theirs :-P
>>The word you are looking for is 'communication', not
>>'correspondence'.
>
> You just keep tellin' yerself that.
<grin>
>><blows raspberry>
>
> Ah, a sexual proclivity for fresh fruit, eh? Just FYI, if you're
>trying to turn me on I think doing a banana would work much better.
Butt wouldn't that be a 'zerbut'?
There is just no stain factor with bananas.
[...]
> I can't say as I read much of that exchange at all (and also far too
>lazy to Google it all up), but knowing what I know and at least some few
>of the parties involved I'd have to refrain from offering much of an
>opinion one way or the other save to say that you *might* wanna tighten
>the calibration on that meter of your'n.
That is always a possibility, it is far from infallible
[...]
>>I remain UNspanked :-P
>
> Is that disappointment I hear?
> I mean, I'm not much for that sorta kink but if you're buying the
>booze I might be persuaded to oblige.
<doubleknots laces on dancin' shoes>
[...]
>>You don't want to look goofy unintentionally, do you?
>
> What I might want is no guarantee versus my intention one way or the
>other. Which is to say, yah, I'm goofy sometimes - wanna make something
>of it?
Who me?
Nah, I LIKE goofy...or eccentric....that's why I read alt.slack.
>>>Make me sound so dispassionate when really I'm just chock
>>>full of it.
>>I'll take that as a request that I do /not/ forward my viagra
>>spams to you.
>
> I and my (horndawg) prostate have nothing but appreciation for your
>discretion in such matters. But I'm still waiting to see if someone
>gets a mouthful of bait on my above quoted too.
Prolly won't now you've pointed it out.
[...]
>>>(..but if you've got nice tits I'll happily demonstrate.)
>><looks down>
>>I can't say they really do anything for *me*.
>
> Well, it looks like a .JPEG would definitely be in order then.
>
>Mikey (..but an .MPEG on a trampoline wood be better.)
R--I--G--H--T
i'll just hop right on that
Dark Angel
| On 23 Apr 2003 14:27:42 -0600, Dark Angel <anon...@nyx.net> wrote:
|>In soc.singles Sharon B <sha...@lart.com> wrote:
|>
|>| He/she isn't breaking the law. He/she is ENTIRELY lame for posting
|>| private correspondence.
|>
|>Except it isn't private correspondence. He/she is posting old
|>usenet posts Brenda made.
| Fair Game, then.
| My mistake for ASSuming,
No problem - it was a pretty natural assumption. I mean, how
many people post private love messages to thier lovers on news
groups, anyway?
| but I stand by my statement that posting
| private correspondence is ENTIRELY lame....
I'm with you 100% on this.
| and forging email addresses
| is NOT a crime.
Hmmm, I think in some circumstances it might be.
| *snurf*
gesundheit.
|>|> Yah, well, I just got an email offering to help me enlarge my breasts,
|>|>so false accusations of pedophilia hardly even rate.
|>
|>| I'm not seeing you running around frothing about it.
|>
|>Actually, I heard he took them up on the offer.
| *snarf*
| "man boobs"
| I dunno /why/ but that always cracks me up
Me too! Which probably says something about me, but I have no
idea what.
--
Dark Angel
"How embarrassing. I look like I can afford to be here."
Dark Angel
| On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 20:28:20 GMT, m...@dbtech.net (Vapid Shell Me)
| wrote:
|>On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 15:10:42 -0400, Sharon B <sha...@lart.com> wrote:
| [...]
|>Brenda is reposting love letters she has written as well as love
|>letters she has received from her husband.
| <raises eyebrows>
| must.....restrain....my....self.....GAH
| Okay. I can't stop. WHY?
My guess is it has something to do with all the lsd her parents put
in her formula when she was a baby. But that's just a guess.
|>The forged reposts of Brenda love letters to Anakin aka Jackie Tokeman
|>were not private emails, but were public letters posted across at
|>least 4 newsgroups.
Well hey, it's not like he ever trusted her with his email address...
The Danimal
> In soc.singles Sharon B <sha...@lart.com> wrote:
> | On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 20:28:20 GMT, m...@dbtech.net (Vapid Shell Me)
> | wrote:
>
> |>On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 15:10:42 -0400, Sharon B <sha...@lart.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
> |>Brenda is reposting love letters she has written as well as love
> |>letters she has received from her husband.
>
> | <raises eyebrows>
>
> | must.....restrain....my....self.....GAH
>
> | Okay. I can't stop. WHY?
>
> My guess is it has something to do with all the lsd her parents put
> in her formula when she was a baby. But that's just a guess.
What drives a middle-aged male physicist to impersonate
a 17-year-old female stripper physicist on Usenet who claims
to depilate with Nair? Something even more potent than LSD
in his baby formula, apparently.
> |>The forged reposts of Brenda love letters to Anakin aka Jackie Tokeman
> |>were not private emails, but were public letters posted across at
> |>least 4 newsgroups.
>
> Well hey, it's not like he ever trusted her with his email address...
According to the Sobolewski theory of popularity, the more you
talk about Brenda, the more she popular she is.
-- the Danimal, that's really the Danimal theory of notoriety
P.S. Terrorists need more money. Log off and go for a drive.
Pete Turk
<CrashSt...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>You are boring. Remove yourself from usenet altogether.
>
>Crash Street Kidd
>
Hi Crash,
If you feel up to _ordering_ someone to leave
USENET ... because he bores _you_ (?!), then you
had better look rather carefully at yourself.
This is megalomania in the style of Mrs. Milosevic
herself, Crash. And, unlike Anne Robinson, we
don't see it rounded-off with a wry wink.
Now, let me put an idea to you that you might
find hard to grasp:
-- alt.romance and alt.romance.chat are here
for people to exchange question, answers, info
about matters _romantic_. The hatreds and
inner-horrors of soc.singles readers have
no place there.
Find someone to go over this post with you.
Get her to mouth the difficult words and translate
them into baby-talk. If she's very brave, she might
even persuade you that the assertion ... has a point.
Not that she'd ever succeed in the last, though, Crash ...
Obduracy, Ondrea's red-rage, and a protective
stupidity all stand there as your shield against
such a terrifying loss of ignorance.
'We owe respect to the living, to
the dead we owe only the truth.'
-- Voltaire 'Première Lettre sur Oedipe'
Pete Turk <Pe...@ragtag.demon.co.uk> ICQ# 11981084
RFA President and Moonshadow
--
May your doorstep ever be dirty.
-- Romany blessing
Sharon B
>Sharon B wrote:
>>miguel wrote:
>>>Sharon B wrote:
>>>>miguel wrote:
>>>>>Sharon B wrote:
>>>>>>Mike Given wrote:
>>>>>>>Sharon B wrote:
>>>>>>>>miguel wrote:
>>>>>>>>>Sharon B wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>miguel wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>Sharon B wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>miguel wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sharon B wrote:
[snippage of your misdirections]
>>Since I first saw your nym pop up in xposts some months ago I have
>>been worrying myself sick over what opinion you were forming of me.
>
>Yet you still respond. What's up with that?
Sarcasm, but I'll dumb it down for you in future.
[...]
>I doubt you're smart enough to be stung. Really.
Are you going to impress and intimidate me with your IQ score now?
[...]
>>Prolly not, nor am I interested enough in your old flame war to go
>>google grepping for it. I note your bravery in xposting this to
>>alt.config, preferring not to lame them or make claims where they
>>can't see it.
>
>So once again you're pulling stuff out of your arse. Now
>there's a beeg surprise.
No, that was sarcasm again.
[...]
>At least you didn't accuse me of frothing for the 47th time
>in this post.
It's not used once in that post. I'll add reading for comprehension
to your list of failures.
[...]
>>You know how much I value your opinion of me.
>
>I can tell by your ability to ignore my posts.
For the rest of this thread at least, you're starting to bore /me/, so
doubtless we are /both/ boring everyone else.
You'll have to hump another post in another thread if you want to
continue your boasts of what a s00per l33t flamer d00d you are and how
you run people off the 'net with your searing wit and troll the kevlar
groups and me needing deflating.
and stuff
Mike Given
>Mike Given <asp...@gipco.org> wrote:
>>Sharon B wrote:
>>>Mike Given <news...@comcast.net>wrote:
>>>>Sharon B wrote:
>>>>>Mike Given <asp...@gipco.org> wrote:
>>>>>>Sharon B wrote:
>>[.."correspondence"..]
>>>>Ergo, your dictionary is in desperate need of an
>>>>upgrade if you're to keep up with my particular
>>>>level of lexical pedantry.
>>>I figger I kin hold my own :-)
>>.JPEG?
>HAR. Troll :-)
If ya don't at least chuck a line in the water you'll never catch
nothin'; it's pretty rare when they just jump right in the boat.
[...]
>>my Mischief Quotient as a young'un probably pinged
>>off the scale.
><grin>
>It's the little sh*ts that make the most interesting adults,
>IMHO.
Only when we manage to stay out of jail.
>>ObI'mGoingToHell: At the very least it had gotten a polite-
>>yet-imperative request from pastor and Mother Superior that
>>I would be happier in the public school system - something
>>about a missing box of communion wine and five (including
>>myself) drunken altar boys.
>You are not supposed to get /caught/.
Fortunately (and I do mean fortunately) it was an inevitability;
precocious or no, eleven year-olds don't have the experience in dealing
with alcohol to understand things like tolerances and weight-to-booze
ratios. That, and two of the other knuckleheads barfed up in class
after a coupla hours. No way to avoid the bust.
In any case, for the very first time the church officials were
correct; I was indeed *much* happier in the public school system.
>>>I can't remember names, either (that I'm told verbally,
>>>Usenet is different)....and I seldom drink /anything/,
>>>so I can't even use that as an excuse.
>>Oooh, a lightweight. We should go on a date sometime; saves
>>on the Rufinol expenses.
>Clealy, sir has me confused with someone stupid enough to sip
>from a container that has left her line of sight.
Clearly ma'am, I had no such intent.
I'd just honestly drink ya under the table and then see what you can
be persuaded to do while you're down there.
>I larned that when I had it pulled on me as a bar-hoppin'
>teen....unfortunately for him I was a Very Bad Teen
>thus he didn't dose anywhere NEAR high enough :-)
It sounds like he wasn't so much unfortunate as he was just plain
stupid. If you were in fact a VeryBadTeen the Rufinol wouldn't be
necessary.
[...]
>>The whole Godfrey vs. Demon lawsuit was definitely a bit
>>scary; that an ISP could be held liable for information on
>>public fora is defintely to boggle about.
>I was more boggling over the fact that it can /be/ the truth
>but if it causes them damage they can *still* win. WTF?
Some of the rulings that have come through the Brit judicial system
lately are almost unbelievable. The YooEss system of precedential
ruling versus merits of an individual case has always been a bit of a
peeve for me but after reading some of what's gone on in British courts
of late the harshness of my POV on the American system has softened a
bit.
[...]
>We don't get quite as many cartoony threats as nanae, but
>not a shabby count. One of the astrology kooks just tried
>to sue AN ENTIRE NG of posters last summer....HAHAHAHAHAHA
>HAHAHAHAHAHA.
That sounds like a Wollman stunt.
>[...]
>>><grin>
>>>You read like a nanae-ite.
>>Oh, something like that; there's an (allegedly reformed)
>>spammer of some notariety what makes his home in the Philly
>>Metro area. I may or may not have been at least partially
>>responsible for a few minor pranks in dealing with said
>>individual.
>I think Phoenix pardoned him, as well.
I can't say as I've pardoned, though there are worse culprits out
there at this point - or so it seems.
[...]
>You also read like an alt.slacker
Never been there. Isn't that Stang and the Dobbs-worshipping crew?
><laces up my bestest tap dancin' shoes>
Utterly useless accoutrement in light of the big ugly biker-boots I'm
often wont to be sporting.
[...]
>>>Nyah. This is called, Big Bird Logic.
>>By that "logic", I can claim that I am having intercourse
>>with you right this very moment. In public, even.
>Of course you can, this is Usenet....you can claim anything
>you want :-P
Nonetheless, we *are* having intercourse. And I'm not even wearing a
condom.
[...]
>>In any case, I used to roam-lurk in lots of different
>>places in days gone by when I had that sort of spare time.
>Hmmm....I'm certain you're understating your Usenet fame.
I should hope not; I've been quite meticulous in keeping my aspect
ratio quite thin. Posts I've made as "me" are quite distinct from posts
made as "not me". And of course (in case ya was gonna ask) I don't say
which of the "not mes" are mine unless I've met up in person with
someone and grown to like and trust them. Additionally, only a handful
of people what I haven't met have detected my writing style sufficiently
to figure which of the "not mes" are actually me. Which is good. I
think.
>[...]
>>There's a good reason for that and probably several good
>>reasons why I don't talk much about it publicly.
>I take no offense at people not wanting to divulge
>information.
Oh, I'll divulge lotsa stuff - there are some goodly number of things
that either don't matter much in the GrandSchemeOfThings or I just don't
care about (likely no one else does either). Then there are other
things on which the statute of limitations on prosecution have rendered
pretty much inert. I don't plan on writing my memoirs so no harm in
airing some of the more colorful bits of fun.
>Nosiness is a hillbilly thang, practiced out of curiosity
>and interest rather than malice.
Nosiness isn't exclusive to hillbillies by a long shot.
>[...]
>>You really are cute in CAPS, ya know.
>You really are fun to play with, ya know.
One endeavors to be at least mildly entertaining.
>Seriously. I quite enjoy the Just For Fun Flamefests
You should meet up with me and the Friday Afternoon Happy Hour crew
after we've all had half-a-bucket of beer or so and started shooting
pool. The trash talk hits levels that make Dennis Leary and Andrew Dice
Clay sound like simpering schoolboys - and that's just the girlies.
>....although at least half the time I get my azz handed
>to me playing against the net.ghods :-)
>but that's ALL RIGHT cuz the other half I get theirs :-P
Pikers, one and all. When ya gots a grip on an ass ya don't just hand
it back unless suitably bribed to do so.
>>><blows raspberry>
>>Ah, a sexual proclivity for fresh fruit, eh? Just FYI, if
>>you're trying to turn me on I think doing a banana would
>>work much better.
>Butt wouldn't that be a 'zerbut'?
We all on the northeastern coast of the YooEss call 'em "Bronx
Cheers".
>There is just no stain factor with bananas.
Golly, you really are a piker, aintcha? I suppose now you're gonna
tell me that no one's ever explained the the merits of chocolate syrup
when dealing with bananas.
[...]
>>>I remain UNspanked :-P
>>Is that disappointment I hear?
>>I mean, I'm not much for that sorta kink but if you're
>>buying the booze I might be persuaded to oblige.
><doubleknots laces on dancin' shoes>
Coward.
>[...]
>>>You don't want to look goofy unintentionally, do you?
>>What I might want is no guarantee versus my intention one
>>way or the other. Which is to say, yah, I'm goofy sometimes
>> - wanna make something of it?
>Who me?
>Nah, I LIKE goofy...or eccentric....that's why I read
>alt.slack.
(clickity-Google)
It *is* the subgenies.
No, I don't think I'd do so very well there. Different type of
eccentric.
[...]
>>>>(..but if you've got nice tits I'll happily demonstrate.)
>>><looks down>
>>>I can't say they really do anything for *me*.
>>Well, it looks like a .JPEG would definitely be in order
>>then.
>>(..but an .MPEG on a trampoline wood be better.)
>R--I--G--H--T
>i'll just hop right on that
Yeehaw! Hop higher!
Mikey (and a bit faster, and a wee bit to the right, if ya don't mind.)
John Fereira
news:WcLtDLAt...@ragtag.demon.co.uk:
>
> Now, let me put an idea to you that you might
> find hard to grasp:
>
> -- alt.romance and alt.romance.chat are here
> for people to exchange question, answers, info
> about matters _romantic_. The hatreds and
> inner-horrors of soc.singles readers have
> no place there.
I don't suppose that it may have occured to you that soc.single readers
feel the same way about alt.romance and ARC, yet we continue to get your
soap operas cross posted here. What makes you think that anyone in
soc.singles cares about some silly RFA presidency?
Dark Angel
| Dark Angel <anon...@nyx.net> wrote in message news:<10512247...@irys.nyx.net>...
|> In soc.singles Sharon B <sha...@lart.com> wrote:
|> | On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 20:28:20 GMT, m...@dbtech.net (Vapid Shell Me)
|> | wrote:
|>
|> |>On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 15:10:42 -0400, Sharon B <sha...@lart.com> wrote:
|>
|> [...]
|> |>Brenda is reposting love letters she has written as well as love
|> |>letters she has received from her husband.
|>
|> | <raises eyebrows>
|>
|> | must.....restrain....my....self.....GAH
|>
|> | Okay. I can't stop. WHY?
|>
|> My guess is it has something to do with all the lsd her parents put
|> in her formula when she was a baby. But that's just a guess.
| What drives a middle-aged male physicist to impersonate
| a 17-year-old female stripper physicist on Usenet who claims
| to depilate with Nair?
Hellifino. Why don't you go out and try to find such a person and
ask them. Don't forget to wear your toupee.
| Something even more potent than LSD
| in his baby formula, apparently.
Speaking from experience?
|> |>The forged reposts of Brenda love letters to Anakin aka Jackie Tokeman
|> |>were not private emails, but were public letters posted across at
|> |>least 4 newsgroups.
|>
|> Well hey, it's not like he ever trusted her with his email address...
| According to the Sobolewski theory of popularity, the more you
| talk about Brenda, the more she popular she is.
Solosexi is a nutcase. Are you, Dan, also a nutcase?
Rhetorical.
| -- the Danimal, that's really the Danimal theory of notoriety
So, you jump in trying to defend brendud because you think she's
notorious? I agree with your assessment, but I fail to understand
why that would motivate you to rise to her defense. Hoping to
become her next cyberlover, perhaps?
| P.S. Terrorists need more money. Log off and go for a drive.
Good idea. It's a nice day, I think I'll go run some bicyclists
off the road.
--
Dark Angel
"There were more dancing queens in the audience than there were onstage."
Dark Angel
| In article <3eaf8453...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
| gunh...@vegetus.pacbell.net says...
|>
|>WELL??????
| Not sure. Wherever he is I hope he stays there.
Good possibility of that - he's likely in the pokey doing five to ten.
Probably got caught stealing so he could buy friends with cheap beer...
| Crash Street Kidd
Ashurbanipal
Crash Street Kidd <CrashSt...@hotmail.com> spleniated...
>In article <1qafavcg5o3elsunt...@4ax.com>, Sharon says...
>>On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 18:36:16 -0400, Mike Given <news...@comcast.net>
>>wrote:
>>>Sharon B wrote:
>>>>Mike Given <asp...@gipco.org> wrote:
>>In any event, ya can't win money just because yer being defamed.
>the defamation and any additional relevant circumstances.
You can't win money just because you're being INSULTED. I am always
free to insult anyone I like.
I cannot, however, knowingly represent a falsehood as a truth to a
second-party when it injures/signifigantly damages the personal reputation
and/or business of a third-party. Unless I like losing a lawsuit. Providing
they can prove the above.
Almost never can they prove it.
The law in England is much more dangerous.
ash
['Woo.']
--
"We oughta tell 'em th' whole Army don't look like us, Joe."
_________________________________________________________________
Give me Liberty or give me a nice house in France from whence I
can hunt some Liberty down. Or you can eat lead. Get off my wave.
Two|Riven against a Black Sun|six|...that which we are we are|One
Ashurbanipal
Oh, c'mon, if it really was titled that you'd post to it wouldn't you?
ash
['Maybe Ilya just needs to go nappies!']
Sharon B
wrote:
>Sharon B wrote:
>>Mike Given <asp...@gipco.org> wrote:
>>>Sharon B wrote:
>>>>Mike Given <news...@comcast.net>wrote:
>>>>>Sharon B wrote:
>>>>>>Mike Given <asp...@gipco.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>Sharon B wrote:
>>>[.."correspondence"..]
>>>>>Ergo, your dictionary is in desperate need of an
>>>>>upgrade if you're to keep up with my particular
>>>>>level of lexical pedantry.
>>>>I figger I kin hold my own :-)
>>>.JPEG?
>>HAR. Troll :-)
>
> If ya don't at least chuck a line in the water you'll never catch
>nothin'; it's pretty rare when they just jump right in the boat.
<grin>
Actually, I have a reputation of leaping right into the boat after the
shiny hook. I was practicing my self-restraint.
[...]
>>It's the little sh*ts that make the most interesting adults,
>>IMHO.
>
> Only when we manage to stay out of jail.
Doesn't that fall under the Golden Rule of 'Do unto others, then
split'?
[...]
>>You are not supposed to get /caught/.
>
> Fortunately (and I do mean fortunately) it was an inevitability;
>precocious or no, eleven year-olds don't have the experience in dealing
>with alcohol to understand things like tolerances and weight-to-booze
>ratios. That, and two of the other knuckleheads barfed up in class
>after a coupla hours. No way to avoid the bust.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
> In any case, for the very first time the church officials were
>correct; I was indeed *much* happier in the public school system.
Absolutely. Public school is/was much more tolerant of public
intoxication and passing out in the hallways. At least mine was.
[...]
> Clearly ma'am, I had no such intent.
> I'd just honestly drink ya under the table
*snark*
That would be about three drinks. *Mebbe* five if I remember to eat
first. Utterly shameful.
>and then see what you can
>be persuaded to do while you're down there.
Ye gads! Absolutely no telling.....but it doesn't count if I can't
remember it.
Control of my big yap is usually the first thing to go...which is why
I argue with anesthesiologists whenever it comes up that I DO NOT WANT
the general anesthetic, gimme the local. I came to once near the end
(which is the way they try to dose it), and heard my yap having a
MERRY OLDE TYME and to the vast amusement of the OR staff..
...and for the couple minutes or so it took me to locate the nerves
and muscles connected to My Big Yap, I hadda lay there and listen in
helpless HORROR at the things it was spewing out.
[...]
> Some of the rulings that have come through the Brit judicial system
>lately are almost unbelievable. The YooEss system of precedential
>ruling versus merits of an individual case has always been a bit of a
>peeve for me but after reading some of what's gone on in British courts
>of late the harshness of my POV on the American system has softened a
>bit.
Aye, ours sucks but not as badly as everyone else's :-)
>[...]
>>We don't get quite as many cartoony threats as nanae, but
>>not a shabby count. One of the astrology kooks just tried
>>to sue AN ENTIRE NG of posters last summer....HAHAHAHAHAHA
>>HAHAHAHAHAHA.
>
> That sounds like a Wollman stunt.
Pete Stapleton (Staplehead), IIRC. The posters residing in CA were
especially amused, SLAP lawsuits and all that.
[...]
>>You also read like an alt.slacker
>
> Never been there. Isn't that Stang and the Dobbs-worshipping crew?
<grin>
Old timer. It's one of the groups I (mostly) lurk in, funny bunch.
>><laces up my bestest tap dancin' shoes>
>
> Utterly useless accoutrement in light of the big ugly biker-boots I'm
>often wont to be sporting.
....as long as I stay out of reach....
I larned that rasslin' with the fellas.
>[...]
>>>>Nyah. This is called, Big Bird Logic.
>>>By that "logic", I can claim that I am having intercourse
>>>with you right this very moment. In public, even.
>>Of course you can, this is Usenet....you can claim anything
>>you want :-P
>
> Nonetheless, we *are* having intercourse. And I'm not even wearing a
>condom.
I hope you catch a fit of snickers.....and maybe spew.
[...]
> I should hope not; I've been quite meticulous in keeping my aspect
>ratio quite thin. Posts I've made as "me" are quite distinct from posts
>made as "not me". And of course (in case ya was gonna ask) I don't say
>which of the "not mes" are mine unless I've met up in person with
>someone and grown to like and trust them. Additionally, only a handful
>of people what I haven't met have detected my writing style sufficiently
>to figure which of the "not mes" are actually me. Which is good. I
>think.
Sock popping on syntax is a highly skilled and very fallible art.
[....]
> Nosiness isn't exclusive to hillbillies by a long shot.
I just wanted you to realize I'm not /trying/ to be offensive with it.
[...]
> One endeavors to be at least mildly entertaining.
You are underrating yourself.
>>Seriously. I quite enjoy the Just For Fun Flamefests
>
> You should meet up with me and the Friday Afternoon Happy Hour crew
>after we've all had half-a-bucket of beer or so and started shooting
>pool. The trash talk hits levels that make Dennis Leary and Andrew Dice
>Clay sound like simpering schoolboys - and that's just the girlies.
<grin>
sounds like a LOT of fun. do y'all play for money or drinks?
>>....although at least half the time I get my azz handed
>>to me playing against the net.ghods :-)
>>but that's ALL RIGHT cuz the other half I get theirs :-P
>
> Pikers, one and all. When ya gots a grip on an ass ya don't just hand
>it back unless suitably bribed to do so.
Well, they don't usually have a /firm/ hold, so I have wriggle room
and work my way loose.
[blowing raspberries]
> We all on the northeastern coast of the YooEss call 'em "Bronx
>Cheers".
Yankee
>>There is just no stain factor with bananas.
>
> Golly, you really are a piker, aintcha? I suppose now you're gonna
>tell me that no one's ever explained the the merits of chocolate syrup
>when dealing with bananas.
Apparently my education has been sorely lacking in some areas.
>[...]
>>>>I remain UNspanked :-P
>>>Is that disappointment I hear?
>>>I mean, I'm not much for that sorta kink but if you're
>>>buying the booze I might be persuaded to oblige.
>><doubleknots laces on dancin' shoes>
>
> Coward.
j00 d*mn skippy
I got my eye on *you*.
>>[...]
>>>>You don't want to look goofy unintentionally, do you?
>>>What I might want is no guarantee versus my intention one
>>>way or the other. Which is to say, yah, I'm goofy sometimes
>>> - wanna make something of it?
>>Who me?
>>Nah, I LIKE goofy...or eccentric....that's why I read
>>alt.slack.
>
> (clickity-Google)
> It *is* the subgenies.
> No, I don't think I'd do so very well there. Different type of
>eccentric.
Nonetheless, some of your style is distinctly SubGenius.
>[...]
>>>>>(..but if you've got nice tits I'll happily demonstrate.)
>>>><looks down>
>>>>I can't say they really do anything for *me*.
>>>Well, it looks like a .JPEG would definitely be in order
>>>then.
>>>(..but an .MPEG on a trampoline wood be better.)
>>R--I--G--H--T
>>i'll just hop right on that
>
> Yeehaw! Hop higher!
>
>Mikey (and a bit faster, and a wee bit to the right, if ya don't mind.)
You're tryin' to get my feet caught in the springs, aintcha?
Brock Hannibal
> Old feet need real hiking boots. I've got a pair of Chippewa
> (www.chippewaboots.com) waterproof boots that I bought a couple of years
> ago that I really like. The don't seem to make the model I have anymore
> but these look real nice:
>
> http://www.chippewaboots.com/boots/searchdefault.asp?id=25920
>
> They're very comfortable, will keep your feet dry, and made in the U.S.A.
> I think I paid about $140 for them but they're worth it. Some of the "big
> name" (ie. Asolo, Vasque) might cost considerably more.
In another life (the one between college the first and college the
second) I worked a lot in construction and Chippewa boots were the best
work boots I could find.
Right now I'm wearing a pair of Merrell low-cut hiking shoes. This kind
is kind of like a ruggedized running or basketball shoe. They're good
for knocking about but not nearly heavy-duty enough for serious
off-maintained-path hiking or back-packing.
--
Brock
"We also know how cruel the truth often is, and we wonder whether
delusion is not more consoling." -- Henri Poincare
CANADER
> In article <WjId8LAgX$q+E...@ragtag.demon.co.uk>,
> Pete Turk <Pe...@ragtag.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >In article <Xns9368838FAB7E...@132.236.56.8>, John Fereira
> ><ja...@cornell.edu> writes
> >>Pete Turk <Pe...@ragtag.demon.co.uk> wrote in
> >>news:WcLtDLAt...@ragtag.demon.co.uk:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Now, let me put an idea to you that you might
> >>> find hard to grasp:
> >>>
> >>> -- alt.romance and alt.romance.chat are here
> >>> for people to exchange question, answers, info
> >>> about matters _romantic_. The hatreds and
> >>> inner-horrors of soc.singles readers have
> >>> no place there.
> >>
> >>I don't suppose that it may have occured to you that soc.single readers
> >>feel the same way about alt.romance and ARC, yet we continue to get your
> >>soap operas cross posted here.
>
> >
> > I'll do what I can to trim the cross-posting.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Was the Fireplace (of the RFA) getting low and you felt the need for a
> nice toasty nostalgic flamewar? So you threw some bait out?
>
> ;-)
>
> >> What makes you think that anyone in
> >>soc.singles cares about some silly RFA presidency?
> >>
>
> Good answer.
>
> ARC is cordially requested to keep ARC business (like, who did what to
> whom how many times x months or years ago) in ARC.
>
> Watch the newsgroups line ... some people are trying to rekindle other
> sorts of fires ...
>
> ;-)
>
> Charlotte
> ngs modified, followups reset
I have a solution to this problem. From this day forward, all regular
posters to alt.romance.chat are to be Removed From Usenet Altogether.
Dark Angel
| On 25 Apr 2003 14:24:52 -0600, Dark Angel <anon...@nyx.net> wrote:
|>In soc.singles The Danimal <dmo...@mfm.com> wrote:
|>| -- the Danimal, that's really the Danimal theory of notoriety
|>
|>So, you jump in trying to defend brendud because you think she's
|>notorious? I agree with your assessment, but I fail to understand
|>why that would motivate you to rise to her defense. Hoping to
|>become her next cyberlover, perhaps?
| Prolly, it seems that is the only love he can get.........
To get love, you have to give love. Usually. Dan I don't think is
capable of loving anyone but himself.
| why else would he keep hoping for sex robots?
So he can fart loudly at the dinner table and they'll applaud? It
*does seem to be one of his talents he's most proud of...
|>| P.S. Terrorists need more money. Log off and go for a drive.
|>
|>Good idea. It's a nice day, I think I'll go run some bicyclists
|>off the road.
| Heh I laughed
:> I'm gonna get decals made for my car - bicyclist silhouettes
with X's through them, so I can put one on for each bicyclist
I bring down.
No seriously, I don't do things like that - it seems there's
laws against such things.
Pity. ;>
--
Dark Angel
"I'll have what she just poured on me."
Dark Angel
| On 25 Apr 2003 14:29:53 -0600, Dark Angel <anon...@nyx.net> wrote:
|>In soc.singles Crash Street Kidd <CrashSt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
|>| In article <3eaf8453...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
|>| gunh...@vegetus.pacbell.net says...
|>|>
|>|>WELL??????
|>
|>| Not sure. Wherever he is I hope he stays there.
|>
|>Good possibility of that - he's likely in the pokey doing five to ten.
|>
|>Probably got caught stealing so he could buy friends with cheap beer...
| Or he's laid up in the hospital waiting for a liver transplant...
I don't think they give liver transplants to drunks.
Dark Angel
|>To get love, you have to give love. Usually. Dan I don't think is
|>capable of loving anyone but himself.
| Untrue. He could love Gynoid #7.
Well yeah, in the way I love plasma TV. But Gynoid #7 will never
love him back, any more than my TV loves me back.
|>:> I'm gonna get decals made for my car - bicyclist silhouettes
|>with X's through them, so I can put one on for each bicyclist
|>I bring down.
|>
|>No seriously, I don't do things like that - it seems there's
|>laws against such things.
|>
|>Pity. ;>
| I only need one bicyclist tally on the side of my van. (Hi Dan!)
It doesn't count unless you wipe them out physically. :>
--
Dark Angel
"I am the alpha wolf in a pack of poodles."
Dark Angel
[snip]
| Jeem goes home and calls for police protection for himself and his
| family after an angry mob appears at his doorstep with pitchforks and
| torches and shotguns.................
a) He'd never make it out of the courtroom alive.
b) The police wouldn't protect him.
| Oh and by the way, what do you think are the odds Jeem will try and
| use the "but Chaney said...." excuse when the mobs show up at his
| doorstep?
Sure wish I could get those kind of odds in Vegas. :>
Dark Angel
|>In soc.singles Steve Chaney, aka Mister Gunnykins Ž <gunh...@vegetus.pacbell.net> wrote:
|>| On 29 Apr 2003 17:19:09 -0600, Dark Angel <anon...@nyx.net> wrote:
|>
|>|>To get love, you have to give love. Usually. Dan I don't think is
|>|>capable of loving anyone but himself.
|>
|>| Untrue. He could love Gynoid #7.
|>
|>Well yeah, in the way I love plasma TV. But Gynoid #7 will never
|>love him back, any more than my TV loves me back.
| But he can always convince himself that she can.
Oh, no doubt he'll try.
|>|>:> I'm gonna get decals made for my car - bicyclist silhouettes
|>|>with X's through them, so I can put one on for each bicyclist
|>|>I bring down.
|>|>
|>|>No seriously, I don't do things like that - it seems there's
|>|>laws against such things.
|>|>
|>|>Pity. ;>
|>
|>| I only need one bicyclist tally on the side of my van. (Hi Dan!)
|>
|>It doesn't count unless you wipe them out physically. :>
| He ain't worth the prison time.
Well yeah, there's that. The trick is to freak them out so they
crash without actually hitting them. Coming up behind them and
then locking up your tires while blaring the horn often works....
....Or so I've heard.
--
Dark Angel
"I don't think I've ever seen you in the daylight."
Dark Angel
|>In soc.singles Steve Chaney, aka Mister Gunnykins Ž <gunh...@vegetus.pacbell.net> wrote:
|>
|>[snip]
|>
|>| Jeem goes home and calls for police protection for himself and his
|>| family after an angry mob appears at his doorstep with pitchforks and
|>| torches and shotguns.................
|>
|>a) He'd never make it out of the courtroom alive.
|>b) The police wouldn't protect him.
| Awwwwwwww so then who would I pay damages to?
You could always send them to me - I would love to have a nice cabin
up in the mountains for summer retreats. ;>
| You know, I could start out with an irrelevant "n*gger" quote by The
| Jeep just to get the crowd warmed up. The plantiff's attorney would
| hit me with an objection on that one, but the damage would be done.
| THEN I'd hit 'em with the main course.
Are you familiar with the phrase 'gilding the lilly'? - no need to
risk a mistrial when you know the mob will butcher him anyway...
|>| Oh and by the way, what do you think are the odds Jeem will try and
|>| use the "but Chaney said...." excuse when the mobs show up at his
|>| doorstep?
|>
|>Sure wish I could get those kind of odds in Vegas. :>
| And I hope John Fereira is standing by him when he does it.
The JeemDutton information minister? Yeah, that'd be poetic.
Dark Angel
| On 2 May 2003 14:14:23 -0600, Dark Angel <anon...@nyx.net> wrote:
|>In soc.singles Steve Chaney, aka Mister Gunnykins ® <gunh...@vegetus.pacbell.net> wrote:
|>| On 1 May 2003 16:45:54 -0600, Dark Angel <anon...@nyx.net> wrote:
|>|>|>:> I'm gonna get decals made for my car - bicyclist silhouettes
|>|>|>with X's through them, so I can put one on for each bicyclist
|>|>|>I bring down.
|>|>|>
|>|>|>No seriously, I don't do things like that - it seems there's
|>|>|>laws against such things.
|>|>|>
|>|>|>Pity. ;>
|>|>
|>|>| I only need one bicyclist tally on the side of my van. (Hi Dan!)
|>|>
|>|>It doesn't count unless you wipe them out physically. :>
|>
|>| He ain't worth the prison time.
|>
|>Well yeah, there's that. The trick is to freak them out so they
|>crash without actually hitting them. Coming up behind them and
|>then locking up your tires while blaring the horn often works....
| Just don't get seen by anyone else if you do it.
Well I try not to. But it all happens so fast no one besides me
knows what really happened anyay.
| Heck, if no one is looking, swerve towards his lane. That'll do it
| every time.
Heck, if no one's looking, I just stick the 2X4 out the window and
smack 'em in the back of the head as I drive by.
| But make 150% sure he hits a tree so he don't live to tell!
Concrete bridge abutments work wonders. :>
| -- Steve
| PS: we ain't serious about this, folks.
SHHH!!! It's more fun if they think we are. Beside, mebbe you ain't
serious, but how do you know I'm not? ;>
| º¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤º
| Steve Chaney
| gunh...@vegetus.pacbell.net
| Remove "Vegetus." to get my real email address
| See the soc.singles HALL OF STUPID: http://member.newsguy.com/~gunhed/hallofstupid
--
Dark Angel
"Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum
immane mittam."
Dark Angel
|>In soc.singles Steve Chaney, aka Mister Gunnykins ® <gunh...@vegetus.pacbell.net> wrote:
|>| On 1 May 2003 16:49:24 -0600, Dark Angel <anon...@nyx.net> wrote:
|>
|>|>In soc.singles Steve Chaney, aka Mister Gunnykins ® <gunh...@vegetus.pacbell.net> wrote:
|>|>
|>|>[snip]
|>|>
|>|>| Jeem goes home and calls for police protection for himself and his
|>|>| family after an angry mob appears at his doorstep with pitchforks and
|>|>| torches and shotguns.................
|>|>
|>|>a) He'd never make it out of the courtroom alive.
|>|>b) The police wouldn't protect him.
|>
|>| Awwwwwwww so then who would I pay damages to?
|>
|>You could always send them to me - I would love to have a nice cabin
|>up in the mountains for summer retreats. ;>
| The damages awarded to Jeep would probably be enough to buy you a pack
| of cigarettes.
Which would probably about double his net worth, were he to live
to collect it.
|>| You know, I could start out with an irrelevant "n*gger" quote by The
|>| Jeep just to get the crowd warmed up. The plantiff's attorney would
|>| hit me with an objection on that one, but the damage would be done.
|>
|>| THEN I'd hit 'em with the main course.
|>
|>Are you familiar with the phrase 'gilding the lilly'?
| No, please explain.
Literaly it refers to gold-plating something to make it beautiful, when
that thing is already beautiful. Or in otherwords a superflous action.
|> - no need to
|>risk a mistrial when you know the mob will butcher him anyway...
| A mistrial over the presentation of one leetle documented remark?
It's unlikely, true, but I've discovered that coutrooms are very
unpredictable places...
|>|>| Oh and by the way, what do you think are the odds Jeem will try and
|>|>| use the "but Chaney said...." excuse when the mobs show up at his
|>|>| doorstep?
|>|>
|>|>Sure wish I could get those kind of odds in Vegas. :>
|>
|>| And I hope John Fereira is standing by him when he does it.
|>
|>The JeemDutton information minister? Yeah, that'd be poetic.
| "Everyone likes Jeem. He is popular. Jeem is a nice guy in real life."
| Yeah, I can hear it now.
| -- Steve, that means they'll need 20 feet of rope instead of 10
Or two pitchforks instead of one.
Steve Chaney
>In soc.singles Steve Chaney, aka Mister Gunnykins ® <gunh...@vegetus.pacbell.net> wrote:
>| On 2 May 2003 14:50:50 -0600, Dark Angel <anon...@nyx.net> wrote:
>
>|>In soc.singles Steve Chaney, aka Mister Gunnykins ® <gunh...@vegetus.pacbell.net> wrote:
>|>| On 1 May 2003 16:49:24 -0600, Dark Angel <anon...@nyx.net> wrote:
>|>
>|>|>In soc.singles Steve Chaney, aka Mister Gunnykins ® <gunh...@vegetus.pacbell.net> wrote:
>|>|>
>|>|>[snip]
>|>|>
>|>|>| Jeem goes home and calls for police protection for himself and his
>|>|>| family after an angry mob appears at his doorstep with pitchforks and
>|>|>| torches and shotguns.................
>|>|>
>|>|>a) He'd never make it out of the courtroom alive.
>|>|>b) The police wouldn't protect him.
>|>
>|>| Awwwwwwww so then who would I pay damages to?
>|>
>|>You could always send them to me - I would love to have a nice cabin
>|>up in the mountains for summer retreats. ;>
>
>| The damages awarded to Jeep would probably be enough to buy you a pack
>| of cigarettes.
>
>Which would probably about double his net worth, were he to live
>to collect it.
Jeep's best bet would be to put his new friend Bushmaster "rape is an
acceptable sex act" Bob in front of him as a human shield.
>|>| You know, I could start out with an irrelevant "n*gger" quote by The
>|>| Jeep just to get the crowd warmed up. The plantiff's attorney would
>|>| hit me with an objection on that one, but the damage would be done.
>|>
>|>| THEN I'd hit 'em with the main course.
>|>
>|>Are you familiar with the phrase 'gilding the lilly'?
>
>| No, please explain.
>
>Literaly it refers to gold-plating something to make it beautiful, when
>that thing is already beautiful. Or in otherwords a superflous action.
Overkill.
>|> - no need to
>|>risk a mistrial when you know the mob will butcher him anyway...
>
>| A mistrial over the presentation of one leetle documented remark?
>
>It's unlikely, true, but I've discovered that coutrooms are very
>unpredictable places...
Ya got a point there.
>|>|>| Oh and by the way, what do you think are the odds Jeem will try and
>|>|>| use the "but Chaney said...." excuse when the mobs show up at his
>|>|>| doorstep?
>|>|>
>|>|>Sure wish I could get those kind of odds in Vegas. :>
>|>
>|>| And I hope John Fereira is standing by him when he does it.
>|>
>|>The JeemDutton information minister? Yeah, that'd be poetic.
>
>| "Everyone likes Jeem. He is popular. Jeem is a nice guy in real life."
>| Yeah, I can hear it now.
>
>
>| -- Steve, that means they'll need 20 feet of rope instead of 10
>
>Or two pitchforks instead of one.
Well, first ya hang 'em. Then you roast 'em. Then you put a pitch fork in
their carcasses to see if they're done.
-- Steve, then you feed 'em to the boars
This FAQ can be found on the web at
http://member.newsguy.com/~gunhed/jjdfaq/jjd-faq.txt
This FAQ, updated 12/23/2002, is for the alt.bonehead.jim-dutton newsgroup,
regarding Jim J. Dutton, aka j...@mcs.net, or j...@enteract.com.
1. Who is Jim Dutton?
1a. What is his BMI?
1b. Is there such a thing as an autistic retard?
2. Why is he hated by the entire civilized universe?
3. Is Jim Dutton really a loser?
3a. Does Jim Dutton have a bald spot?
3b. Is Jim Dutton a whining hypocrite?
3c. So how do you get under Jim Dutton's skin?
4. Is he a woman beater?
4a. What does Jim Dutton say to a woman whose daughter was killed by a
drunk driver?
5. Is he a pedophile / child molestation acceptor?
5a. Does he try to redirect attention from his pedophile
tendencies?
5b. Was Jeem one of the first to make pedophilic remarks
on soc.singles?
6. Is Jim Dutton a criminal?
7. Is he a racist?
8. Is he a homophobe?
9. Is Jim Dutton a coward?
9a. Does he threaten women?
10. Is his wife a used up worn out Russian mail order bride?
11. Does his wife loathe him?
12. Does Jim Dutton have an obsession with Rauni's breasts?
13. Do Jim Dutton and Ian Turton share underwear?
14. What is the story of Jim Dutton's life?
15. What does Jim Dutton say about himself?
16. Where will he stumble next?
17. What's this I hear about Jim Dutton merchandise?
18. Where does Jim Dutton live?
1. Who is Jim Dutton?
Jim Dutton is an autistic retard, a contagion restricted to soc.singles by
means of federally mandated quarantine. Suffering from a severe case of
alcohol and pot addiction and depression, he lashes out at random, but has
been known to become obsessed with people who piss him off. He thinks that
cheating at Red Alert 2 against 8 year olds, makes him an alpha male. Or
something.
1a. What is his BMI?
According to Jackie the Tokeman, his only true friend, 27.1. His arch
nemesis, whom he calls "pelicangullet", is 27.0. Which means the real
pelicangullet is, of course, Jim Dutton.
1b. Is there such a thing as an autistic retard?
Yes, actually, there is. "There are autistic people who are retarded, in
those cases it's both...they are autistic AND they are retarded. These
cases usually involve such things as Fetal Alcohol Syndrom or fragile
X."
- Drea, Message-ID: <VAlk9.43301$Wa.24...@twister.southeast.rr.com>
Jim Dutton most certainly behaves like a fetal alcohol syndrome child
would.
2. Why is he hated by the entire civilized universe?
Take a lack of temper control, cowardice, racism, homophobia, pedophilia,
threats to beat people up (and then the subsequent no-shows), and an
uncontrolled animosity towards most anything that passes in his field of
vision, and you have the model loser - Jim Dutton.
He is often even compared to, and associated with, the greatest kook in the
universe, Aaron Kulkis:
'But Aaron displays a need to "win" the argument, and that is probably
fatal for him here on mfw. His non-response to some of John William's
posts is an example. Where his buddy "Jeem" appears to be a run of the
mill troll, just trying to generate responses with nonsense.' -
TheObserver, Message-ID:
<yWeP6.29736$BN6.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
"Dude, you are such a lame troll that you are not even worth bothering
with. Now go take Aaron home and you two can love each other like you
deserve." - Elzi Volk, Message-ID:
<51grgtktflh2p9ki9...@4ax.com>
3. Is Jim Dutton really a loser?
What would YOU say of a guy who plays Red Alert 2 and had to buy a mail
order bride from Russia who is a single mother with 2 kids? Nobody even
knows what happened with his first wife. Perhaps he chased her away.
3a. Does Jim Dutton have a bald spot?
http://member.newsguy.com/~gunhed/jjdfaq/baldjim.jpg
This is an issue because Jim Dutton makes fun of other people because
they have a bald spot. He refera too a person named Vlad as 'Vald', a
parody of his name meaning "bald Vlad". He does this many times. Here's
but one example of many.
=================================
From: j...@enteract.com (jim dutton)
Newsgroups: soc.singles,alt.fan.jackie-tokeman
Subject: Re: soc.support.fat-rejectance FAQ 2.9
Date: 31 May 2001 15:42:02 GMT
Organization: EnterAct Corp Turbo-Elite News Server
Lines: 131
Message-ID: <9f5ooa$5i5$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>
References: <83204276b75cd73a...@melontraffickers.com>
X-Trace: UmFuZG9tSVYHRESav6pOowzKlFfeO96hJ0buhbMN2cS4XdCFN8MHLLHotEEwyrkG
X-Complaints-To: ab...@rcn.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 May 2001 15:42:02 GMT
Keywords: a communications disruption
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test74 (May 26, 2000)
Originator: j...@enteract.com (jim dutton)
In article <83204276b75cd73a...@melontraffickers.com>,
A. Melon <ju...@melontraffickers.com> wrote:
>the sexual statistics of shitsacks currently dissing crash street kidd
>and enialle:
>
>name relationship status age of mate
>=======================================================================
>jim ledford married wall victim
>john seiler married almost wall victim
>jim dutton married total wall victim
>ian turton celibate n/a
>frans buijsen celibate n/a
>jackie 'anakin' tokeman celibate n/a
>mike cranston celibate n/a
>charlotte blackmer celibate n/a
>faith celibate n/a
>george davenport celibate n/a
>brock hannibal celibate n/a
>leigh widowed/celibate n/a
>nr celibate n/a
>marty celibate n/a
>aaron kulkis celibate4life n/a
>
>
>the odds that you're a celibate loser if you're lashing out at vlad and
ondrea:
>81.25%
It's funny how eanelle is a fat shrew who looks like a witch
while her new husband is a bald pudgy piltdown man who
likes to talk how tough he is on usenet while failing to ever back it up.
No wonder he settled to chaney level
-Jeem, Happy lives to eanelle and valdy. Their breakfast table resembles
a shot from dawn of the dead
=========================================================================
Visit my homepage:
www.bishopdutton.org
Read about the internets biggest kook/pedophile/obese/
chronicly unemployed/women beater. ie the worst of the internet:
www.pat-acceptance.org
=========================================================================
=================================
3b. Is Jim Dutton a whining hypocrite?
Indubitably.
He makes sexual jokes about people's mothers, wives, and kids, yet when it
happens to him, he gripes and moans and squeals just like the stuck pig he
is.
See:
Message-ID: <avhggd$pl9$1...@panix3.panix.com>
(This post also includes a libelously false claim by Dutton, accusing a
user named Deep Fish out of Korea of making pedophile posts that he never
made)
"You're a pedophile who posted pedo crap about my kids fatass. The
sicj part is you're employed by a school."
"Actually you are fat titboy. You forgot when you posted my wives head
on your porno picture that your whole familys pictures where readily
available as well. You were to stupid to know a web page you put was right
there to give you a taste of your own cowardly medicine.
As rqards your laughable picture Let me guess your triple chin is a
feature."
3c. So how do you get under Jim Dutton's skin?
Answer: Do to him what he does to other people.
4. Is he a woman beater?
He'd certainly like to be.
"I wouldn't bother fats. I will tell your daughter what a scumbag her
cumsack mother is. Then I would hope you like to get physical
so I could kock your fatass out. But you ain't got the balls to show."
Message-ID: <934vqj$fuu$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>
"WHatever victim girl. If I lived in canada and they were using my money to
support your spice channel I'd be over there right now with my boot up your
ass helping you get out of bed in the morning."
Message-ID: <8jb0pd$2q78$1...@news.enteract.com>
"Someday you will be beaten to death by the likes of chaney.
And as your such a two face phoney I say the sooner the better."
Jim Dutton, Message-ID: <852qhn$2h5$1...@eve.enteract.com>
"I hope that fat lieing child abusing cunt is killed by steve chaney."
Jim Dutton, Message-ID: <9aacp8$ldm$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>
4a. What does Jim Dutton say to a woman whose daughter was killed by a
drunk driver?
"You shouldn't really be poking people about suicide attempts when you are
allied with rauni. Remember her daughter decided to take a little drive to
get away from that psycho." - Message-ID: <apoqmh$qgl$1...@panix3.panix.com>
5. Is Jim Dutton a pedophile / child molestation acceptor?
Yes, by his own words.
============================
"As I said I hope your child is molested."
- Jim Dutton to Nubianne Khatulah Black,
Message-ID: <8meire$tbv$1...@news.enteract.com>
"Does your daughter swallow?"
Message-ID: <8nrj7g$1894$1...@news.enteract.com>
"NIce try coward. What are you flying your daughter in for one
of those 500 man fucks?"
Message-ID: <935b0v$kfk$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>
"Liar. You stated I wouldn't have the balls to talk about your
duaghter getting molested to your face. I said I would."
Message-ID: <935b0v$kfk$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>
" -Jeem, Molesting any kids tonight kim?"
Jim Dutton to Kim Vawryk,
Message-ID: <9add0d$59m$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>
"Speaking as a our resident pedophile Steev Chaney does Nubiennes
fat kid swallow?"
Jim Dutton again,
Message-ID: <8o36b0$2da8$1...@news.enteract.com>
"I've asked the question ten times pedogirl.
What are you distracted with a chicken hawk
magazine or something?" - Jim Dutton, showing off
his superior child molestation lingo trivia skillz,
Message-ID: <9add0d$59m$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>
"Hi pedogirl. What you and chicken hawk boy doing
this weekend?" - Jim Dutton, again alluding to his
magazine subscriptions, Message-ID: <9afori$7a0$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>
"Everyone is now free to talk about sex with
allisons future children." - Jim Dutton,
Message-ID: <9b1nre$hsi$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>
============================
5a. Does he try to redirect attention from his pedophile
tendencies?
Yes, he does. Again, by his own words, he falsely accuses people of child
molestation, in an attempt to draw attention away from his own remarks:
============================
From: j...@enteract.com (jim dutton)
Subject: Re: I'd rather be fat and happy
Date: 04 Oct 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <8rfbe4$23e7$1...@news.enteract.com>
References: <c207d161f13befe5...@melontraffickers.com>
<8rdh35$a...@portal.gmu.edu> <8rdp1h$l5v$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
<5m4ltskr0op00fkb8...@4ax.com>
X-Complaints-To: ab...@enteract.com
X-Trace: news.enteract.com 970666244 69063 207.229.143.40 (4 Oct 2000
13:30:44 GMT)
Organization: EnterAct
NNTP-Posting-Date: 4 Oct 2000 13:30:44 GMT
Newsgroups: soc.singles,alt.fan.jackie-tokeman,soc.support.fat-acceptance
In article <5m4ltskr0op00fkb8...@4ax.com>,
Rauni <jen...@newguy.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 03 Oct 2000 23:10:47 GMT, Nubianne Kthulah Black
><kth...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <8rdh35$a...@portal.gmu.edu>,
>> Shawn T Pickrell <spic...@mason2.gmu.edu> wrote:
>>> i sense a historic moment here.
>><snip>
>>
>>In the spirit of returning the favors to Debbie, I think Jim needs
>>professional help. I don't know if encouraging him is such a good
>>idea.
>>
>You know Shawn a lot of us *were* his friends, we had chatted with him
>via ICQ. How do you think he got my pic? Then he stared I will meet
>you at the airport and the "your mama" shit with Steve and Steve
>responded in kind. It escalated from there and Jeems' children were
>brought in. My sister's response to both of them months ago to the
>insults to family members were that it was juvenile. I finally
>killfiled him after he started in with the silt your throat stuff.
>The man is one sick dude and the fact that *anyone* could remains
>friends with him is beyond comprehension after his constant kill
>yourself posts.
Oh Know a welfare fraud child molesting fat stripper has killfiled me.
Hep me. Hep me to hep myself.
Used debbie lately?
============================
5b. Was Jeem one of the first to make pedophilic remarks
on soc.singles?
Perhaps. He has falsely accused people of this since 1994.
===========================
From: j...@MCS.COM (Jim Dutton)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: nice guys always get fucked! (the nice thread)
Date: 21 Nov 1994 09:06:47 -0600
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organi[sz]ation
Lines: 111
Message-ID: <3aqd27$i...@Venus.mcs.com>
References: <bberry-0911...@aragorn187.acns.nwu.edu>
<sandworm-101...@198.68.161.229> <3a8mpi$3...@Mercury.mcs.com>
<sandworm-171...@198.68.161.229>
NNTP-Posting-Host: venus.mcs.com
In article <sandworm-171...@198.68.161.229>,
Ross Jeffries <sand...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>In article <3a8mpi$3...@Mercury.mcs.com>, j...@MCS.COM (Jim Dutton) wrote:
>
>>
>> Heh Ross and Lewis. Why not sell your worthless product in a biz group
where
>> it belongs.
>
>
> Sell? I offered to send him free info.
Yea ya tried that scam here as well. Then you hit em up for
money. But we both know that idiotboy.
>> with their children,
>
>
> I don't have any children, nor, to my knowledge, does Lewis. Sounds like
I doubt you could pay someone to carry your spawn, not to mention the
majority of people you try to have sex with haven't reached child bearing
age.
>you're making a referential index switch to me, honey pie.
Yea right moron.
>
> Ross likes to try to take advantage of lonely
>> people by pushing his NLP tapes.
>You mean I've helped thousands of guys be more succesful with women
>teaching them a revolutionary application of NLP persuasion technology?
>Thanks for the endorsement, Jeem.
No actually I meant you're a thief spamming a piece of crap product.
> He wants you to send him money so
>> you can try to hypnotize people into sleeping with you.
>
> Not quite. It's not about hypnosis but about state creation, control and
>binding. Too complex for simpletons but the average thinking Joe or Jeem
>could understand it if they were to OPEN YOUR MIND and think.
Like a said he thinks you can hypnotize people into sleeping with you.
Its basicly a retarded venture.
>
> Keep in mind one
>> of the authors of his snake oil, using the technique they proport work,
>> has been so successful you can see him pleading on alt.personals for any
>> date that will take him.
>
>
> Ha ha ha. I woudn't call it that. He's just experimenting and you should
>SEE the responses he's getting! Ha! Ask him nicely Jeem and he'll send you
>some mail you can masturbate over on those cold, lonely nights when N & C
>are staying with Mommy.(By the by...how's her rehab program going?)
As you can see the man is a simpleton who wouldn't know how to pick
up his right hand.
> That would be Lewis DePayne. A known pedophile.
>
> Really? Care to retract that libelous statement, buddy, or do we need
>to forward it to your sysadmin so he can ream your ass again?
Actually Ross Jeffries is also a known pedophile who only goal in life
in life is sodomizing children. If you have any doubts I'd be happy
to send you copies of his email declaring same.
Yes you've heard about pedophiles and Ross Jeffries and Lewis DePayne
Are quite active in Nambla.
>In addition keep in mind the person wanting you to send him money
>> doesn't have the brains required to push his product in a business group
>> where it belongs
>
> Hey, thanks for the idea. Care to suggest some? You're always so helpful.
>C'mere so I can give you a hug, Jeemy. You sound lonely.....
Actually if you were to meet me you've made it quite clear the
only reaction you are capable of would be pissing your cowardly pants.
Unless you'd like to back up your bullshit. Egh pussboy.
Actually people have indicated to me you really have made some
people mad and you will be held accountable. But what would I know?
>> people with low self esteem.
>
> Or a great reception from open minded people who are willing to expand
>their thinking to get better results in life!
Its a fantastic product that cures the common cold and waxes cars!
>> This warning message is brought to you by Jeem who isn't above
>> saying "I told you so".
>>
>
> Or beneath stooping to lies and libel to try to make a point, other than
>the one on top of his head..
Ross Jeffries is a danger to children. Beware of this pedophile.
>> Shit Eaters 'R' Us. doh#0000000005 That ain't no Human.
>> Sperm Sucker's 'R' Us. ZX-10. AMA#669373 DoD#564. There ain't no Brain
>> ========================================================================
Behold more pedophilic creative editing by a sick little coward --^
========================================================================
Steatopygias's 'R' Us. doh#0000000005 That ain't no Hottentot.
Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us. ZX-10. AMA#669373 DoD#564. There ain't no more
========================================================================
===========================
6. Is Jim Dutton a criminal?
By his own admission, he says he smokes pot. This is a crime in all 50
states.
===========================
From: j...@enteract.com (jim dutton)
Newsgroups: soc.singles,soc.support.fat-acceptance
Subject: Re: We Loves Ya Marty-NOT
Date: 4 Oct 2000 20:17:58 GMT
Organization: EnterAct
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <8rg39m$hb6$1...@news.enteract.com>
References: <2786d3374b6b9835...@anon.xg.nu>
<8rfvio$7u5$4...@dosa.alt.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: shell-1.enteract.com
X-Trace: news.enteract.com 970690678 17766 207.229.143.40 (4 Oct 2000
20:17:58 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@enteract.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 4 Oct 2000 20:17:58 GMT
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test72 (19 April 1999)
In article <8rfvio$7u5$4...@dosa.alt.net>, Marty <Ma...@alt.net> wrote:
>no....@anon.xg.nu (No User) wrote in
><2786d3374b6b9835...@anon.xg.nu>:
>> Jeem, who smokes, (not just cigarettes either) and drinks like a fish,
>>yet de-grades, ridicule those who are over weight?
Actually I smoke cigs and pot. I only ridicule the fat fucks crossposting
and harping in shingles. It just goes to show how easy it is to
stay in shape. Unless you're a lazy glutton.
>>I am sure that " Beer Gut Benny" (Jeem) is more over weight than many
>>who post in ssfa.
Ab contest loser.
-Jeem, Didn't think so phoneyfuck
========================================================================
http://www.ejeem.com
Steatopygias's 'R' Us. doh#0000000005 That ain't no Hottentot.
Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us. ZX-10. DoD#564. tbtw#6. s.s.m#8. There ain't no
more
"The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little long
er. " -- Henry Kissinger
========================================================================
===========================
7. Is he a racist?
Indeed, by his own admission. He has a pattern that also includes
homophobic remarks. See 7. for more details.
" This new guy just walked in, read what you posted, and said you write
like an effeminate obese nigger. I really told him off."
Message-ID: <7svjm4$h9t$1...@eve.enteract.com>
"Because everyone here say's you write like a low rent nigger?"
Message-ID: <8ib7tt$6hd$1...@news.enteract.com>
"Steve remeber when you had to your chance to face the guy that
called you a low rent nigger and a shame to your race and you ran away
after flapping your jaws about being a man?"
Message-ID: <8ne26i$30bc$1...@news.enteract.com>
For the sake of conserving bandwidth, if you want more examples, check out
dejanews:
http://x69.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/qs.xp?ST=PS&svcclass=dnyr&firstsearch=
yes&preserve=1&QRY=nigger&defaultOp=AND&DBS=1&OP=dnquery.xp&LNG=
english&subjects=&groups=soc.singles&authors=jim+dutton&fromdate=&todate=
&maxhits=25&showsort=date
(search for author "jim dutton", forum "soc.singles", and the word
"nigger").
Also note he makes numerous monkey and banana references.
8. Is he a homophobe?
Indubitably.
" You write like a faggot Dragon.
No wonder you're a chubby lapper."
Message-ID: <833e9u$bne$1...@eve.enteract.com>
"-Jeem, You should be beaten mercilessly the way you and Raunchi used her.
And your still trying to use her because...you're a faggot."
Message-ID: <8p8dq2$2949$1...@news.enteract.com>
"You sound angry effemineeka? Unfortunately you can't drag anyone or
anything anywhere. You'd brake your little faggot wrist."
Message-ID: <823d9e$f49$1...@eve.enteract.com>
"Your life is so fucking sad. And your friends look like escapeys from a
faggot convention. Do they anchor themselves down with something heavy if
the winds get up to 3mph?"
Message-ID: <828hn1$i3f$1...@eve.enteract.com>
9. Is Jim Dutton a coward?
Jim Dutton has
a) challenged three different people to fights (at airports)
LAX - 12/18/1999
San Diego - his challenge was met, then he refused to set a time/date
Ben Gurion - 1/12/2001, his challenge was met, a time and date set, and
then he failed to show up.
b) failed to appear for all three challenges after his bluff was called
c) attempted to lie about one of his no-shows.
9a. Does he threaten women?
Yes, beyond even a reasonable doubt.
For evidence, see 4.
10. Is his wife a used up retread Russian mail order bride?
Yes, she is a divorced mother of two. Note that Jim Dutton believes single
mothers have low sexual marketability value. Apparently, by his standards,
that's all he can get.
11. Does his wife loathe him?
Here is an eyewitness account of a person who saw Jim's wedding pictures.
"Notice how quickly jeem jumps away from this issue. I think this is
rather telling, jeem. Why is your wife so clearly uncomfortable in your
wedding pics? Why is she showing so little affection on the very day when
she should be showing the most?
One would think your own wife would at least show you the same level of
affection as women I've just met are showing me. But she doesn't. Hell, in
half the pics you're not even touching and in the ones where you are, she
looks really uncomfortable. Why is your wife so stand-offish in those
pics?
In this one, she looks horrified at you touching her. So much so you
captioned it 'does she know me'"
Message-ID: <38583946...@home.com>
(Note that Jim Dutton took his wedding pics down after this.)
And another account:
"hopefully when i get married my wife will be smiling in the pics
unlike a certain party to this conversation..." - Crash Street Kidd,
referring to Jim Dutton's wedding photos
Message-ID: <3A370A29...@mail.com>
12. Does Jim Dutton have an obsession with Rauni's breasts?
Here's how it began. Jim Dutton went onto ICQ to get a picture of Rauni.
After she spent a while showing him how to use ICQ, he finally got her
picture.
This was his response.
Jeem (ICQ#2265785) Wrote on 10/18/1999 4:37pm:
Whats with the getup??? Nice pic. Nice cleavage. runs in the family!!! I
gotta gotalk to you again soon.
Note how he went right for the cleavage. You can tell what he was
interested in!
Rauni gave this account of what happened after this Oct 1999 incident:
"You know Shawn a lot of us *were* his friends, we had chatted with him via
ICQ. How do you think he got my pic? Then he stared I will meet you at
the airport and the "your mama" shit with Steve and Steve responded in
kind. It escalated from there and Jeems' children were
brought in. My sister's response to both of them months ago to the
insults to family members were that it was juvenile. I finally
killfiled him after he started in with the silt your throat stuff.
The man is one sick dude and the fact that *anyone* could remains
friends with him is beyond comprehension after his constant kill
yourself posts."
Message-ID: <5m4ltskr0op00fkb8...@4ax.com>
And now:
"It's hard to believe but her breasts are actually uglier then your
mothers." - Jim Dutton, talking about Rauni's breasts, 10/04/2000,
Message-ID: <8rfd1g$2bsa$1...@news.enteract.com>
"Hi alabastor tits. How do I get to San Bernadino calif? -Jeem, Check your
road map tits fatgirl"
Message-ID: <949pu3$3rs$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>
13. Do Jim Dutton and Ian Turton share underwear?
==========================
Message-ID: <949sve$jam$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>
In article <3a68f3b9...@207.211.168.90>, Rauni <jen...@newsguy.com>
wrote:
>On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 21:57:33 -0500, turtoni <tur...@my-deja.com>
>wrote:
>
>>> rauni is an obese nearly 50 year old single mother with a brain injury
>>> living in LA.
>>>
>>> turtoni - hth.
>>
>>and is a welfare fraud.
>
>I guess you share underware with Jeem.............
Actually yes.
-Jeem, HTH alabaster tits
==========================
14. What is the story of Jim Dutton's life?
John Griffin described Jim's usenet life better than anyone.
"How hard is it to "win" when your goals are that low and your tormenters
are just fucking with you, knowing that your "judges" are all dumber
than the computers they use to post their stupid, juvenile remarks?
Meanwhile, anyone and everyone with a three digit IQ saw him making
mincemeat of himself, spurred on by occasional prods from normal people.
How hard is it to "win" when the people who are casually and effortlessly
kicking your ass and stimulating you to put your own foot in it couldn't
care less about your goals?
There is no victory over such an unworthy "opponent" as the chickenshit.
No one was looking for a victory. We just like prodding the stupid little
turd to see how much he can hurt himself in reply."
- Message-ID: <3d53511f$1...@news.foxinternet.com>
15. What does Jim Dutton say about himself?
"me dumb long time" - Jim Dutton to Rauni via ICQ, 10/18/1999
16. Where will he stumble next?
Never fear. It's containment, baby. We got it all under control.
"Actually I only post and read soc.singles." - Jim Dutton,
Message-ID: <935b0v$kfk$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>
17. What's this I hear about Jim Dutton merchandise?
Jim Dutton's own words, and his picture, on t-shirts.
http://member.newsguy.com/~gunhed/pat20/dutton/shirts/jeemshirt1.jpg
http://member.newsguy.com/~gunhed/pat20/dutton/shirts/jeemshirt2.jpg
http://member.newsguy.com/~gunhed/pat20/dutton/shirts/jeemshirt3.jpg
Each shirt has this on the back:
http://member.newsguy.com/~gunhed/pat20/dutton/shirts/jeemshirtback.jpg
On sale soon!
18. Where does Jim Dutton live?
If you want to talk to him in person and ask him why he thinks women's
children ought to be molested, his address can be obtained by doing a
WHOIS lookup on his website, ejeem.com:
Jim Dutton
11S032 West St.
Naperville, IL
60565
How to get there (from San Bernardino)?
1. Start on W 5TH ST
2. Turn Left on N H ST
3. Turn Right to take the I-215 ramp towards BARSTOW
4. Merge on I-215 NORTH
5. Continue on I-15 NORTH
6. Take the I-215 exit towards BELT ROUTE, exit #302
7. Bear Right on I-215 EAST RAMP towards BELT ROUTE
8. Merge on I-215 EAST
9. Bear Left on I-215 NORTH
10. Take the I-80 EAST exit towards CHEYENNE/DENVER, exit #2
11. Merge on I-80 EAST
12. Continue on I-29 SOUTH/I-80 EAST
13. Continue on I-80 EAST towards DES MOINES
14. Take the I-35/I-80 EAST exit towards CHICAGO/KANSAS CITY/MINNEAPOLIS,
exit #123B
15. Continue on I-80 EAST/I-35 NORTH RAMP towards CHICAGO/MINNEAPOLIS
16. Merge on I-35 NORTH/I-80 EAST
17. Continue on I-80 EAST
18. Take the I-88 EAST/IL-92 EAST exit towards ROCK FALLS/STERLING, exit
#4B
19. Merge on I-88 EAST
20. Take the IL-59 exit
21. Turn Right on N IL-59
22. Continue on S IL-59
23. Continue on IL-59 SOUTH
24. Turn Left on 95TH ST
25. Turn Right on WEST ST
Steve Chaney
tom calwell
> Oh, c'mon, if it really was titled that you'd post to it wouldn't you?
why sure.
>ash
>['Maybe Ilya just needs to go nappies!']
his postes were better when he was with layo.
[she sure was an interesting character (astrology nonsense
notwithstanding)]
love lost can really suck.
regards,
Tom
Ilya Shambat
Man, you sound down. Is it your job? Here's the thing to do: go trek
down to Burningman on Labor Day. It is great for lifting your spirits.
I know one woman who was chronically depressed and kept bothering
everyone saying that she was ugly, then she went to Burningman and
decided she was not ugly anymore and she was not gonna be depressed
any longer either. Nothing gets you out of a mental trap better than
seeing what's possible given unlimited freedom and unlimited talent
and unlimited goodwill.
PETE ADMITTED HE WAS A PIMP IN 1999
You're a bum.
catb...@fwiw.com
says...
You say that like it's a bad thing. Remember sweety, the bum and the corporate
CEO both end up just as hopelessly dead. And, usually, the bum has lived the
more honorable life.
Cat
catb...@fwiw.com
says...
There's a limit to everything.
Cat
PETE ADMITTED HE WAS A PIMP IN 1999
> In article <bc1fnf$eoo$0...@pita.alt.net>, PETE ADMITTED HE WAS A PIMP IN 1999
> says...
>
>>Ilya Shambat wrote:
>>
>>
>>>tom calwell <tom_use...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<nn55evsso41cvn34g...@4ax.com>...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ashurbanipal <hur...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Oh, c'mon, if it really was titled that you'd post to it wouldn't you?
>>>>
>>>>why sure.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>ash
>>>>>['Maybe Ilya just needs to go nappies!']
>>>>
>>>>his postes were better when he was with layo.
>>>>[she sure was an interesting character (astrology nonsense
>>>>notwithstanding)]
>>>>
>>>>love lost can really suck.
>>>
>>>
>>>Man, you sound down. Is it your job? Here's the thing to do: go trek
>>>down to Burningman on Labor Day. It is great for lifting your spirits.
>>>I know one woman who was chronically depressed and kept bothering
>>>everyone saying that she was ugly, then she went to Burningman and
>>>decided she was not ugly anymore and she was not gonna be depressed
>>>any longer either. Nothing gets you out of a mental trap better than
>>>seeing what's possible given unlimited freedom and unlimited talent
>>>and unlimited goodwill.
>>
>>You're a bum.
>
>
> You say that like it's a bad thing.
It is.
>Remember sweety, the bum and the corporate
> CEO both end up just as hopelessly dead. And, usually, the bum has lived the
> more honorable life.
Then don't compare the bum to the CEO. Compare the bum to the millions
of hardworking, honest people who live even more honorable lives because
they earn their living and aren't fucking sponging off of someone else's
work...like the CEO and bum do.
>
> Cat
>
>
Ilya Shambat
> There's a limit to everything.
Some resources are in fact unlimited. Human creativity is one such
resource because it involves minimal expenditure of physical energy.
PETE ADMITTED HE WAS A PIMP IN 1999
Anything that requires a minimal expenditure of physical energy is
always tops on the list for fucking bums like Ilya.
Pete Turk
1999 <miltythepi...@petethepimpstapleton.com> writes
>catb...@fwiw.com wrote:
>
>>Remember sweety, the bum and the corporate
>> CEO both end up just as hopelessly dead. And, usually, the bum has lived the
>> more honorable life.
>
>Then don't compare the bum to the CEO. Compare the bum to the millions
>of hardworking, honest people who live even more honorable lives because
>they earn their living and aren't fucking sponging off of someone else's
>work...like the CEO and bum do.
>
'On the rich and the eloquent, on nobles and priests,
the Puritans looked down with contempt: for they esteemed
themselves rich in a more precious treasure, and eloquent
in a more sublime language, nobles by the right of an
earlier creation, and priests by the imposition of a
mightier hand.'
-- Macaulay 'Milton' 1843
Pete Turk <Pe...@ragtag.demon.co.uk> ICQ# 11981084
RFA President and Moonshadow
--
May your doorstep ever be dirty.
-- Romany blessing
PETE ADMITTED HE WAS A PIMP IN 1999
> In article <bc2bp4$9mn$4...@pita.alt.net>, PETE ADMITTED HE WAS A PIMP IN
> 1999 <miltythepi...@petethepimpstapleton.com> writes
>
>>catb...@fwiw.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Remember sweety, the bum and the corporate
>>>CEO both end up just as hopelessly dead. And, usually, the bum has lived the
>>>more honorable life.
>>
>>Then don't compare the bum to the CEO. Compare the bum to the millions
>>of hardworking, honest people who live even more honorable lives because
>>they earn their living and aren't fucking sponging off of someone else's
>>work...like the CEO and bum do.
>>
>
>
> 'On the rich and the eloquent, on nobles and priests,
> the Puritans looked down with contempt: for they esteemed
> themselves rich in a more precious treasure, and eloquent
> in a more sublime language, nobles by the right of an
> earlier creation, and priests by the imposition of a
> mightier hand.'
>
> -- Macaulay 'Milton' 1843
The Puritans earned their living. Unlike Ilya the fucking BUM.
Pete Turk
Ah! .... a self-righteous prunt! A genuine Prude ... >:-]
'Come Boys let's be jolly and drown melancholy,
We'll tope off a Hogshead of Sherry.
Let doating old Puritans dye in their folly,
While we that are Rakes will be merry.
Each Rake with his Miss shall tipple & frolic it.
Peggy & Nanny, & Nanny & Sarah,
Harry, Ionny & Robin, no politick Dicky
and Doll of the Dairy, the Dairy.'
-- London Broadside: 'Larry Grogan or the
London Rakes Delight' 1736.
PETE ADMITTED HE WAS A PIMP IN 1999
Why do you keep quoting irrelevant bullshit? Are you a stupid lazy bum
as well?
Pete Turk
1999 <miltythepi...@petethepimpstapleton.com> writes
>Pete Turk wrote:
>
>> In article <bc2s81$b51$1...@pita.alt.net>, PETE ADMITTED HE WAS A PIMP IN
>> 1999 <miltythepi...@petethepimpstapleton.com> writes
>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Ah! .... a self-righteous prunt! A genuine Prude ... >:-]
>>
>>
>> 'Come Boys let's be jolly and drown melancholy,
>> We'll tope off a Hogshead of Sherry.
>> Let doating old Puritans dye in their folly,
>> While we that are Rakes will be merry.
>> Each Rake with his Miss shall tipple & frolic it.
>> Peggy & Nanny, & Nanny & Sarah,
>> Harry, Ionny & Robin, no politick Dicky
>> and Doll of the Dairy, the Dairy.'
>>
>> -- London Broadside: 'Larry Grogan or the
>> London Rakes Delight' 1736.
>
>Why do you keep quoting irrelevant bullshit? Are you a stupid lazy bum
>as well?
>
'To be able to fill leisure intelligently
is the last product of civilisation.'
-- Bertrand Russell
'The Conquest of Happiness' 1930
Ilya Shambat
Well, I do like to bike.
PETE ADMITTED HE WAS A PIMP IN 1999
Congratulations! You're a fit bum!
PETE ADMITTED HE WAS A PIMP IN 1999
> In article <bc34l1$uj0$1...@pita.alt.net>, PETE ADMITTED HE WAS A PIMP IN
> 1999 <miltythepi...@petethepimpstapleton.com> writes
>
>>Pete Turk wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <bc2s81$b51$1...@pita.alt.net>, PETE ADMITTED HE WAS A PIMP IN
>>>1999 <miltythepi...@petethepimpstapleton.com> writes
>>>
>>>
>>>>The Puritans earned their living. Unlike Ilya the fucking BUM.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ah! .... a self-righteous prunt! A genuine Prude ... >:-]
>>>
>>>
>>> 'Come Boys let's be jolly and drown melancholy,
>>> We'll tope off a Hogshead of Sherry.
>>> Let doating old Puritans dye in their folly,
>>> While we that are Rakes will be merry.
>>> Each Rake with his Miss shall tipple & frolic it.
>>> Peggy & Nanny, & Nanny & Sarah,
>>> Harry, Ionny & Robin, no politick Dicky
>>> and Doll of the Dairy, the Dairy.'
>>>
>>> -- London Broadside: 'Larry Grogan or the
>>> London Rakes Delight' 1736.
>>
>>Why do you keep quoting irrelevant bullshit? Are you a stupid lazy bum
>>as well?
>>
>
>
> 'To be able to fill leisure intelligently
> is the last product of civilisation.'
>
> -- Bertrand Russell
> 'The Conquest of Happiness' 1930
Golly. You must have one of those newfangled Internet connections that
hooks up to the "Web" where you can "surf" for cute little "quotations".
Dwayne
"tom calwell" <tom_use...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> love lost can really suck.
Better to have loved and lost than to never have loved at all... or some
words to that effect... a reasonable facsimile thereof...
--
I shave with Occam's Razor
http://www.dwacon.com
Pete Turk
Must I? I do have things called "books". I recommend
'The Conquest of Happiness'. It's quite short, too.
But let me offer an original 'quotation':
'It's easier to stay with the delusions
we've created in our heads than to
discuss matters openly with others and
to experience the shock of reality.'
-- Pete Turk, 10th June, 2003.
PETE ADMITTED HE WAS A PIMP IN 1999
> In article <bc3ecd$j1t$1...@pita.alt.net>, PETE ADMITTED HE WAS A PIMP IN
> 1999 <miltythepi...@petethepimpstapleton.com> writes
>
>>Pete Turk wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 'To be able to fill leisure intelligently
>>> is the last product of civilisation.'
>>>
>>> -- Bertrand Russell
>>> 'The Conquest of Happiness' 1930
>>
>>Golly. You must have one of those newfangled Internet connections that
>>hooks up to the "Web" where you can "surf" for cute little "quotations".
>>
>
>
> Must I? I do have things called "books". I recommend
> 'The Conquest of Happiness'. It's quite short, too.
>
> But let me offer an original 'quotation':
>
> 'It's easier to stay with the delusions
> we've created in our heads than to
> discuss matters openly with others and
> to experience the shock of reality.'
>
> -- Pete Turk, 10th June, 2003.
It's also easier to copy'n'paste other people's thoughts on subjects
than it is to come up with your own.
On the other hand, now that you *have* come up with your own, I can see
why you prefer to quote others.
catb...@fwiw.com
Don't worry comrade, after the revolution, we will deal with such people! All
these bums and CEOs will find themselves grinding beets for borscht in People's
Cannery #87! We'll see how they like THOSE...beets!
:D
catb...@fwiw.com
Each thing that gets created becomes such as a result of human labour, whether
it's a NASA reentry vehicle or a dildo that sings Wagnerian opera. Some poor
peasant has to man the power tools.
[Mmmmm...power tools!]
:o
The very spacial considerations are -like- daunting dude. And then, of course,
human life spans are, relatively speaking, teenie-weenie, when compared to all
this dirt.
Our very ingenuity may be our undoing.
Cat
catb...@fwiw.com
says...
>
Ilya conceives himself as the brains behind the whole operation. That's why I
find him amusing. I'm trying to convince him that there ARE NO brains behind THE
operation.
Chaos...
Cat
ChaosCheerleader
catb...@fwiw.com
says...
Oh come on now! Some pox-riddled AEnglish king gave those Puritans somebody
else's land clear across an unfathonable ocean just to get rid of their priggish
fanatical faces!
All AEnglande rejoiced as the Puritans set sail. And the hapless Pequod, the
most sublime bums that ever breathed, thought: "there goes the fucking
neighborhood!"
And so the Puritans set about improved this "blessed land" to death.
Cat
Info
PETE ADMITTED HE WAS A PIMP IN 1999
PETE ADMITTED HE WAS A PIMP IN 1999
PETE ADMITTED HE WAS A PIMP IN 1999
catb...@fwiw.com
"It?" Or "they?" I don't much care for our latter-day Puritans. I am an
agnostic. I love the land though. Especially the under developed parts.
Cat
PHAMISFAKE
upchucked news:bc2bp4$9mn$4...@pita.alt.net:
The following is taken from the public records of the Shasta County
Superior Court - Case # 145642 - filed in May 07 2002. This
VERIFIED COMPLAINT SHOWS IN PARAGRAPH 97 NAMED DEFENDANT RICK
LAZZARINI PRESIDENT, THE CHARACTER SHOP, INC. POSTS LIBEL TO
ALT.ASTROLOGY:
"SO IS PEAT'S DAUGHTER. WHAT A NASTY FUCKING WHORE THAT BITCH IS."
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Conspiracy To Defame)
(Against all Defendants)
152. Defendants, and each of them, verified the existence of
their agreement to Defame Plaintiff by adding the Internet Usenet
newsgroups alt. astrology. metapsych, alt.usenet.kooks, and
alt.astrology.scam when publishing to their libelous defamations to
alt.astrology. As follows:
On or about Thursday, 10 May 2001, 00:23:57 -0700, within Message-ID:
<3AFA420D. C42F 4C63@ yep.yep> Defendant RICK LAZZARINI, AKA Tony
Meyers <yep@ yep.yep> published to the Internet Usenet Newsgroups:
alt.astrology. metapsych
PHAMISFAKE
The following is taken from the public records of the Shasta County
PHAMISFAKE
upchucked news:bc2s81$b51$1...@pita.alt.net:
The following is taken from the public records of the Shasta County
PHAMISFAKE
upchucked news:bc4upp$l2h$1...@pita.alt.net:
The following is taken from the public records of the Shasta County
PHAMISFAKE
upchucked news:bc4usf$l2h$3...@pita.alt.net:
The following is taken from the public records of the Shasta County
PHAMISFAKE
upchucked news:bc4uuf$l2h$4...@pita.alt.net:
The following is taken from the public records of the Shasta County
PETE ADMITTED HE WAS A PIMP IN 1999
> PETE ADMITTED HE WAS A PIMP IN 1999
And he got his ass SPANKED again in 2003!
HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH!
Spammed too much from google, dija, kook?
PETE ADMITTED HE WAS A PIMP IN 1999
> PETE ADMITTED HE WAS A PIMP IN 1999
> <miltythepi...@petethepimpstapleton.com> gurgled drolly and
> upchucked news:bc4usf$l2h$3...@pita.alt.net:
>
>
>>catb...@fwiw.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <bc2pk1$5nn$1...@pita.alt.net>, PETE ADMITTED HE WAS A PIMP
>>>IN 1999 says...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ilya Shambat wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>catb...@fwiw.com wrote in message
>>>>>news:<mw%Ea.8204$95....@www.newsranger.com>...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>There's a limit to everything.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Some resources are in fact unlimited. Human creativity is one such
>>>>>resource because it involves minimal expenditure of physical energy.
>>>>
>>>>Anything that requires a minimal expenditure of physical energy is
>>>>always tops on the list for fucking bums like Ilya.
>>>
>>>
>>>Ilya conceives himself as the brains behind the whole operation.
>>>That's why I find him amusing. I'm trying to convince him that there
>>>ARE NO brains behind THE operation.
>>>
>>>Chaos...
>>
>>Entropy....Decay...
>>
>>I'm with ya!
>>
>>
>
>
> The following is taken from
SLAP!
Hey, you know, Wollmann tried the followup thing, too.
Worked out REAL WELL for him!
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
PETE ADMITTED HE WAS A PIMP IN 1999
> PETE ADMITTED HE WAS A PIMP IN 1999
and he filed a bogus lawsuit in 2002, and it failed!
PETE ADMITTED HE WAS A PIMP IN 1999
> PETE ADMITTED HE WAS A PIMP IN 1999
> <miltythepi...@petethepimpstapleton.com> gurgled drolly and
> upchucked news:bc2s81$b51$1...@pita.alt.net:
>
>
>>Pete Turk wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <bc2bp4$9mn$4...@pita.alt.net>, PETE ADMITTED HE WAS A PIMP
>>>IN 1999 <miltythepi...@petethepimpstapleton.com> writes
>>>
>>>
>>>>catb...@fwiw.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Remember sweety, the bum and the corporate
>>>>>CEO both end up just as hopelessly dead. And, usually, the bum has
>>>>>lived the more honorable life.
>>>>
>>>>Then don't compare the bum to the CEO. Compare the bum to the
>>>>millions of hardworking, honest people who live even more honorable
>>>>lives because they earn their living and aren't fucking sponging off
>>>>of someone else's work...like the CEO and bum do.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 'On the rich and the eloquent, on nobles and priests,
>>> the Puritans looked down with contempt: for they esteemed
>>> themselves rich in a more precious treasure, and eloquent
>>> in a more sublime language, nobles by the right of an
>>> earlier creation, and priests by the imposition of a
>>> mightier hand.'
>>>
>>> -- Macaulay 'Milton' 1843
>>
>>
>>The Puritans earned their living. Unlike Ilya the fucking BUM.
>>
>>
>
>
> The following is
Posted from:
whois -h magic 65.141.140.208
Trying whois -h whois.arin.net 65.141.140.208
OrgName: Qwest Communications
OrgID: QWDL
Address: 950 17th Street
Address: Suite 1900
City: Denver
StateProv: CO
PostalCode: 80202
Country: US
NetRange: 65.128.0.0 - 65.159.255.255
CIDR: 65.128.0.0/11
NetName: NET-QWEST-3BLKS
NetHandle: NET-65-128-0-0-1
Parent: NET-65-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Allocation
NameServer: DCA-ANS-01.INET.QWEST.NET
NameServer: SVL-ANS-01.INET.QWEST.NET
Comment: ADDRESSES WITHIN THIS BLOCK ARE NON-PORTABLE
RegDate: 2000-08-23
Updated: 2002-12-17
TechHandle: QN-ARIN
TechName: NOC, NOC
TechPhone: +1-703-363-3001
TechEmail: sup...@qwestip.net
OrgAbuseHandle: QIA2-ARIN
OrgAbuseName: Qwest IP Abuse
OrgAbusePhone: +1-703-363-3001
OrgAbuseEmail: ab...@qwest.net
Ilya Shambat
> You say that like it's a bad thing. Remember sweety, the bum and the corporate
> CEO both end up just as hopelessly dead. And, usually, the bum has lived the
> more honorable life.
More often than not I actually get along with CEOs. One CEO let me
live in his mansion on the shore of a lake for a couple of months. It
was a plush life.
David O'Lantern
> More often than not I actually get along with CEOs. One CEO let me
> live in his mansion on the shore of a lake for a couple of months.
But they mean Chief Executive Officer, honey. Not the *other* CEO.
Explanatorily,
The
--
"I really don't understand the situation. But it's no game." - Bowie
(C) `TheDavid^TM' 2003 | David, P.O. Box 21403, Louisville, KY 40221
hugh jeffcoat
All you had to do was suck his dick once in a while.
Ilya Shambat
> All you had to do was suck his dick once in a while.
You people are loud. You're making me sound shy.
hugh jeffcoat
Not too shy to suck dick for rent, apparently.
catb...@fwiw.com
Not a bad trade! Please more accurately quantify "once in a while?" And do I get
the run of the place?
;9
Cat
David O'Lantern
[...]
> > One CEO let me live in his mansion on the shore of a lake
> > for a couple of months. It was a plush life.
> All you had to do was suck his dick once in a while.
There's nothing wrong with sucking dick. In fact, if you're
at least half as cute as Ilya, you're welcome to suck mine.
Mouths that are wrapped around my cock seldom annoy my brain.
CEOifically,
Ashurbanipal
<<5tffav4iclt9vb59f...@4ax.com>>, Sharon B <sha...@lart.com>
spleniated...
>>|> Yah, well, I just got an email offering to help me enlarge my breasts,
>>|>so false accusations of pedophilia hardly even rate.
>>| I'm not seeing you running around frothing about it.
>>Actually, I heard he took them up on the offer.
>*snarf*
>"man boobs"
>I dunno /why/ but that always cracks me up
apropos boobs
man -k implants
ash
['man cupsize']
--
"We oughta tell 'em th' whole Army don't look like us, Joe."
_________________________________________________________________
Give me Liberty or give me a nice house in France from whence I
can hunt some Liberty down. Or you can eat lead. Get off my wave.
Two|Riven against a Black Sun|six|...that which we are we are|One